What is not known is how many doctors actually recommended removal but the patient refused. Informed consent for surgery requires all the risks of removal be disclosed. Removal of pacemaker or defibrillator leads is not trivial; cardiac laceration, tamponade and death have occurred. Additionally, the patient is left without the benefits of the device for a period of time. After hearing this, even after being told that overall the risk of removal is less than the risk of leaving it in, there are patients that will decline. I have patients refuse my recommendations all the time. This is an aspect of modern medicine that is problematic. Doctors are being judged on outcomes only, disregarding the patient responsibility aspect. Refusing recommended procedures, continuing unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, being noncompliant with medicines are all ways that patient sabatoge their own health.
I know that in the case of my mom who has a pacemaker after a triple bypass surgery (proceeded by two attempts at shunting), she has said repeatedly that she would rather die than have another surgery.
Those are very reasonable points to make against the way this was described.
With a very high death rate now understood, this should light a fire under patients to help do the right thing.
This is very likely out of left field. But here goes.
Is it possible that the devices trigger a hyper immune response leading to autoimmune disease (of sorts) making the patient more vulnerable to bacterial infections?
“Removal of pacemaker or defibrillator leads is not trivial; cardiac laceration, tamponade and death have occurred.”
Yep,i had a pacemaker replacement a year and a half ago and it was a tricky operation removing the leads. My doc was quite concerned about causing damage when yanking out the leads that had become enmeshed with heart tissue. Luckily everything worked out.