Implantation of a permanent pacemaker is a widely accepted procedure for the patient with complete heart block.
As a result of these device, the prognosis for patients with Adams-Stokes syndrome caused by complete A-V block and other cardiac arrhythmia have become much more optimistic.
Permanent pacemaker implantation by means of a transvenous approach has made the operative risk much less and the procedure simpler.
However, a number of con plications have been reported in the literature regarding transvenous endocardial pacemaker implantation during the last a decade.
The patient presepted in this paper is a 26-year old girl who was implanted with a permanent_ pacemaker at 14, years of age because of a congenital A-V block.
. Following first exchange of pulse generator, the electrode (lead) was fractured, so that by the pulse generator, a change to the transvenous technique of implantation was made. After this, there were episodes of recurrent wound infection on three occasions, even though the site of pulse generator implantation was exchanged to the contralateral side of chest wall, massive doses of antibiotics were administered and sensitivity tests for coagulase positive staphylococcal infection were performed.
Though there was no definite evidence of blood stream infection by blood culture, we decided not to use the transvenous technique and not to implant the pulse generator in the chest wall because the venous system and the entire anterior chest wall appeared to be diseased or contaminated by virulent pyogenic organisms.
Finally this intractable systemic and local wound infection was successfully controlled by myocardial lead implantation via a subxiphoid approach and implantation of the pulse generator far down in the abdominal wall.
Implantation of a permanent pacemaker is a widely accepted procedure for the patient with complete heart block.
As a result of these device, the prognosis for patients with Adams-Stokes syndrome caused by complete A-V block and other cardiac arrhythmia have become much more optimistic.
Permanent pacemaker implantation by means of a transvenous approach has made the operative risk much less and the procedure simpler.
However, a number of con plications have been reported in the literature regarding transvenous endocardial pacemaker implantation during the last a decade.
The patient presepted in this paper is a 26-year old girl who was implanted with a permanent_ pacemaker at 14, years of age because of a congenital A-V block.
Following first exchange of pulse generator, the electrode (lead) was fractured, so that by the pulse generator, a change to the transvenous technique of implantation was made. After this, there were episodes of recurrent wound infection on three occasions, even though the site of pulse generator implantation was exchanged to the contralateral side of chest wall, massive doses of antibiotics were administered and sensitivity tests for coagulase positive staphylococcal infection were performed.
Though there was no definite evidence of blood stream infection by blood culture, we decided not to use the transvenous technique and not to implant the pulse generator in the chest wall because the venous system and the entire anterior chest wall appeared to be diseased or contaminated by virulent pyogenic organisms.
Finally this intractable systemic and local wound infection was successfully controlled by myocardial lead implantation via a subxiphoid approach and implantation of the pulse generator far down in the abdominal wall.
The causes and routes of recurrent wound infection and possible blood born infection in this particular patient are still obscure.
We strongly believe that myocardial pacemaker implantation is much safer than transvenous endocardial pacemaker implantation & myocardial pacemaker implantation is a definite method for controlling such an intractable wound infection. following transvenous pacemaker implantation.
|