篇名 | How Long Should Prophylactic Antibiotics be Prescribed for Permanent Pacemaker Implantations? One Day versus Three Days |
---|---|
卷期 | 29:4 |
作者 | Kuang-Hsing Chiang 、 Tze-Fan Chao 、 Wen-Shin Lee 、 Yenn-Jiang Lin 、 Ta-Chuan Tuan 、 Chi-Woon Kong |
頁次 | 341-346 |
關鍵字 | Complication 、 Infection 、 Permanent pacemaker implantation 、 Prophylatic antibiotics 、 MEDLINE 、 SCI 、 Scopus |
出刊日期 | 201307 |
Background: The implantation of a pacemaker is frequently a life-saving procedure. However, the process of implantation may carry an uncommon but potentially life-threatening infective complication. The prescription of prophylactic antibiotics is an effective way to reduce the risk of infection. The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of 2 prophylactic antibiotic schemes and the possible risk factors associated with device-related infections.
Methods: A total of 194 consecutive patients who received permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantations were enrolled in this study. Prophylactic antibiotics were prescribed for every patient with a duration ofeither 1 day or 3 days. The follow-up period was 3 months, and any event ofdevice-related infection was recorded.
Results: Out of the total 194 patients, there were 5 patients who experienced infective complications after PPM implantation (1 patient in the 1-day group and 4 patients in the 3-day group). The rate of infective complications showed no significant difference between the 2 kinds of antibiotic regimens (1.7% vs. 2.9%, p > 0.99). In the multivariate analysis, only the presence of pocket hematoma was an independent risk factor for infective complications (odds ratio = 3.14, p = 0.018).
Conclusions: Our study showed that the efficacies for prevention of PPM-related infections were similar between the 1-day and 3-day regimens of prophylactic antibiotics. Pocket hematoma was an independent risk factor of infective complications, and a longer duration of antibiotic treatment may be considered for these patients. Otherwise, a 1-day course ofantibiotic prophylaxis may be effective enough to prevent device-related infections, and may further reduce the lengths of hospitalizations.