Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection Research Articles

Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection after Early versus Delayed Lead Repositioning.

(1) Background: Early reintervention increases the risk of infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Some operators therefore delay lead repositioning in the case of dislocation by weeks; however, there is no evidence to support this practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of reoperation on infection risk. (2) Methods: The data from consecutive patients undergoing lead repositioning in two European referral centers were retrospectively analyzed. The odds ratio (OR) of CIED infection in the first year was compared among patients undergoing early (≤1 week) vs. delayed (>1 week to 1 year) reoperation. (3) Results: Out of 249 patients requiring CIED reintervention, 85 patients (34%) underwent an early (median 2 days) and 164 (66%) underwent a delayed lead revision (median 53 days). A total of nine (3.6%) wound/device infections were identified. The risk of infection was numerically lower in the early (1.2%) vs. delayed (4.9%) intervention group yielding no statistically significant difference, even after adjustment for typical risk factors for CIED infection (adjusted OR = 0.264, 95% CI 0.032-2.179, p = 0.216). System explantation/extraction was necessary in seven cases, all being revised in the delayed group. (4) Conclusions: In this bicentric, international study, delayed lead repositioning did not reduce the risk of CIED infection.

Reinfection Rates Following Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Reimplementation Post-device Primary Infection

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections have become an increasing problem around the world, affecting one in 20 patients within 3 years of device implementation. Prevention of reinfection following CIED reimplantation is a prominent challenge. One of the most difficult aspects of managing CIED infections is the complexities of their diagnosis: with the complexities of many infections, timely and correct diagnosis becomes complicated, frequently causing delays in commencing proper therapy, and worsening disease severity. As patients receiving CIED therapy are now older, and possess significant comorbidities, they are at a higher risk of infection. The American Heart Association (AHA) has issued a statement to educate clinicians about CIED infections, and the required care for those with suspected or diagnosed infections. To prevent an infection from spreading, it is important to isolate the causative pathogen and perform testing for susceptibility, which is required for crucial choices, including routes and duration of antimicrobial therapy. This review aims to serve as a valuable resource for healthcare professionals, by synthesising current knowledge and best practices; and providing insights into preventive measures, diagnostic challenges, therapeutic strategies, and evidence-based approaches to diagnose and improve the management of CIED infections in an ageing and medically complex patient population.

Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia, cardiac implantable electronic device, extraction, and the risk of recurrent infection; a retrospective population-based cohort study

Background Patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) and Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) are at risk of having CIED infection, pocket infection or endocarditis. To avoid treatment failures, guidelines recommend that the CIED should be extracted in all cases of SAB butrecent studies indicate low extraction rates and low risk of relapse. The aim of the study was to describe a Swedish population-based cohort of patients with CIED and SAB, the rate of extraction, and treatment failure measured as recurrent SAB. Methods Patients identified to have SAB in the Karolinska Laboratory database, serving a population of 1.9 million, from January 2015 through December 2019 were matched to the Swedish ICD and Pacemaker Registry. Patients with CIED and SAB were included. Clinical data were collected from medical records. Results A cohort of 274 patients was identified and 38 patients (14%)had the CIED extracted. Factors associated with extraction were lower age, lower Charlson comorbidity index, shorter time since CIED implantation, and non-nosocomial acquisition, but not mortality. No patient was put on lifelong antibiotic treatment. Sixteen patients (6%) had a recurrent SAB within one year, two in patients subjected to extraction (5%) and 14 in patients not subjected to CIED-extraction (6%). Three of the 14 patients were found to have definite endocarditis during the recurrent episode. Conclusions Despite a low extraction rate, there were few recurrences. We suggest that extraction of the CIED might be omitted if pocket infection, changes on the CIED, or definite endocarditis are not detected.

Outcome and microbiological findings of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device infection.

Infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a multifactorial disease that leads to increased morbidity and mortality. The aim was to analyze patient-, disease- and treatment-related characteristics including microbiological and bacterial spectrum according to survival status and to identify risk factors for 1- and 3-year mortality in patients with local and systemic CIED infection. In a retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from patients with CIED-related local or systemic infection undergoing successful transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Survival status as well as incidence and cause of rehospitalization were recorded. Microbiology and antibiotics used as first-line therapy were compared according to mortality. Independent risk factors for 1- and 3-year mortality were determined. Data from 243 Patients were analyzed. In-hospital mortality was 2.5%. Mortality rates at 30days, 1- and 3years were 4.1%, 18.1% and 30%, respectively. Seventy-four (30.5%) patients had systemic bacterial infection. Independent risk factors for 1-year mortality included age (OR 1.05 [1.01-1.10], p = 0.014), NT-proBNP at admission (OR 4.18 [1.81-9.65], p = 0.001), new onset or worsened tricuspid regurgitation after TLE (OR 6.04 [1.58-23.02], p = 0.009), and systemic infection (OR 2.76 [1.08-7.03], p = 0.034), whereas systemic infection was no longer an independent risk factor for 3-year mortality. Staphylococcus aureus was found in 18.1% of patients who survived and in 25% of those who died, p = 0.092. There was a high proportion of methicillin-resistant strains among coagulase-negative staphylococci (16.5%) compared to Staphylococcus aureus (1.2%). Staphylococci are the most common causative germs of CIED-infection with coagulase-negative staphylococci showing higher resistance rates to antibiotics. The independent risk factors for increased long-term mortality could contribute to individual risk stratification and well-founded treatment decisions in clinical routine. Especially the role of tricuspid regurgitation as a complication after TLE should be investigated in future studies.

Impact of infective versus sterile transvenous lead removal on 30-day outcomes in cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Transvenous lead removal (TLR) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. This study sought to evaluate the impact of TLR on in-hospital mortality and outcomes in patients with and without CIED infection. From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020, we utilized the nationally representative, all-payer, Nationwide Readmissions Database to assess patients who underwent TLR. We categorized TLR as indicated for infection, if the patient had a diagnosis of bacteremia, sepsis, or endocarditis during the initial admission. Conversely, if none of these conditions were present, TLR was considered sterile. The impact of infective vs sterile indications of TLR on mortality and major adverse events was studied. Out of the total 25,144 patients who underwent TLR, 14,030 (55.8%) received TLR based on sterile indications, while 11,114 (44.2%) received TLR due to device infection, with 40.5% having systemic infection and 59.5% having isolated pocket infection. TLR due to infective indications was associated with a significant in-hospital mortality (5.59% vs 1.13%; OR = 5.16; 95% CI 4.33-6.16; p < 0.001). Moreover, when compared with sterile indications, TLR performed due to device infection was associated with a considerable risk of thromboembolic events including pulmonary embolism and stroke (OR = 3.80; 95% CI 3.23-4.47, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the conversion to open heart surgery (1.72% vs. 1.47%, p < 0.111), and infection was not an independent predictor of cardiac (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.97-1.29) or vascular complications (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.73-1.72) between the two groups. Higher in-hospital mortality and rates of thromboembolic events associated with TLR resulting from infective indications may warrant further pursuing this diagnosis in patients.

Do Antibiotic-Impregnated Envelopes Prevent Deep Brain Stimulation Implantable Pulse Generator Infections? A Prospective Cohort Study

Introduction: Infection after deep brain stimulation (DBS) implanted pulse generator (IPG) replacement is uncommon but when it occurs can cause significant clinical morbidity, often resulting in partial or complete DBS system removal. An antibiotic absorbable envelope developed for cardiac implantable electronic devices (IEDs), which releases minocycline and rifampicin for a minimum of 7 days, was shown in the WRAP-IT study to reduce cardiac IED infections for high-risk cardiac patients. We aimed to assess whether placing an IPG in the same antibiotic envelope at the time of IPG replacement reduced the IPG infection rate. Methods: Following institutional ethics approval (UnitingCare HREC), patients scheduled for IPG change due to impending battery depletion were prospectively randomised to receive IPG replacement with or without an antibiotic envelope. Patients with a past history of DBS system infection were excluded. Patients underwent surgery with standard aseptic neurosurgical technique [J Neurol Sci. 2017;383:135–41]. Subsequent infection requiring antibiotic therapy and/or IPG removal or revision was recorded. Results: A total of 427 consecutive patients were randomised from 2018 to 2021 and followed for a minimum of 12 months. No patients were lost to follow-up. At the time of IPG replacement, 200 patients received antibiotic envelope (54 female, 146 male, mean age 72 years), and 227 did not (43 female, 184 male, mean age 71 years). The two groups were homogenous for risk factors of infection. The IPG replacement infection rate was 2.1% (9/427). There were six infections, which required antibiotic therapy and/or IPG removal, in the antibiotic envelope group (6/200) and three in the non-envelope group (3/227) (p = 0.66). Conclusion: This prospective randomised study did not find that an antibiotic envelope reduced the IPG infection rate in our 427 patients undergoing routine DBS IPG replacement. Further research to reduce IPG revisions and infections in a cost-effective manner is required.

Light-sensitive PEG hydrogel with antibacterial performance for pacemaker pocket infection prevention

Prevention of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) infection is crucial for successful outcomes. In this study, we report an adhesive and antibacterial hydrogel coating for CIED infection treatment, by immobilizing polyethylene glycol (PEG) and 2′-O-hydroxypropyl trimethyl ammonium chloride chitosan (HAC) on Ti surface. Initial alkali and APTES treatment caused the formation of –NH2 to enhance the adhesion of the hydrogel coating to Ti implants, followed by immobilizing a photo-cross-linkable PEG/2′-O-HTACCS hydrogel on Ti/OH/NH2 surface. Surface characterization of Ti/OH/NH2 sample and adhesion testing of hydrogel on Ti/OH/NH2 surface confirm successful immobilization of hydrogel onto the Ti/OH/NH2 surface. In vitro and in vivo antimicrobial results exhibited that the photo-cross-linkable PEG/HAC composite hydrogel has excellent antimicrobial capabilities against both Grampositive (S. aureus and S. epidermidis) and Gram-negative (P. aeruginosa and E. coli) bacteria. The outcome of this study demonstrates the photo-cross linked PEG/HAC coating hydrogels can be easily formed on the Ti implants, and has great potential in preventing CIED pocket infection.

Mortality and Costs of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) Infections According to the Therapeutic Approach: A Single-Center Cohort Study.

Background: Cardiac device infections are serious adverse events associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, significant costs, and increased healthcare utilization. The aim of this study is to calculate the costs of treatment of cardiac implantable electrostimulation device (CIED)-related infections for different types of infection (local or systemic) and therapeutic approaches. Patients and Methods: Single-center cohort (1985-2018). The costs of the CIED-related infections were analyzed according to initial treatment (antimicrobial treatment exclusively, local approach, or transvenous lead extraction (TLE)). Total costs (including those for hospitalization stay, drugs, extraction material, and newly implanted devices) were assigned to each case until its final resolution. Results: A total of 380 cases (233 local and 147 systemic infections) were analyzed. The average cost of systemic infection was EUR 34,086, mainly due to hospitalization (78.5%; mean: 24 ± 14 days), with a mortality rate of 10.8%. Local infection had a mortality rate of 2.5% (mainly related to the extraction procedure) and an average cost of EUR 21,790, which was higher in patients with resynchronization therapy devices and defibrillators (46% of total costs). Surgical procedures limited to the pocket for local infections resulted in a high rate of recurrence (87%), evolved to systemic infections in 48 patients, and had a higher cost compared to TLE (EUR 42,978 vs. EUR 24,699; p < 0.01). Conclusions: The costs of treating CIED-related infections are high and mainly related to the type of treatment and length of hospitalization. Complete device removal is always the most effective approach and is a cost-saving strategy.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) Infections, Associated Risk Factors and Optimization in Reducing CIED Infections; An Experience of Tertiary Care Hospital of Pakistan

Objective: To determine the frequency of infections in cardiac implantable Electronic device patients, identify risk factors, and look for optimization in reducing Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device infections, with a resultant decrease in mortality and morbidity, decrease in hospital stay, and total expenditure. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Electrophysiology Department of National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Karachi Pakistan, from Jul 2019 to Jun 2020. Methodology: The study was conducted on the patients with cardiac implantable devices. Adult patients of either genderwith cardiac implantable Electronic device and infection were included. Epicardial leads and surgical site infections within six weeks were excluded. Results: One thousand and forty-six (1046) patients were enrolled in the study. There were 596(57%) male patients. 385(36.8%) patients were implanted with single chamber pacemakers, 390(37.3%) with dual chamber pacemakers, 146(14%) single chamber ICD (implantable cardiac defibrillator), 67(6.4%) dual-chamber cardiac implantable Electronic device, 46(4.4%) CRT-D, 12(1.1%) TPM, 134(12.8%) Re-do, 114(10.9%), 114(10.9%) generator change, 20(1.9%) leads revision, 26(2.5%) patients had extraction. The rate of CIED infection was 34(2.1%). The association of the study parameters with infection rate revealed that type of device (p=0.002), extraction, suture type, and post-procedure hematoma (p&lt;0.001) had a statistically significant relationship with infection rate.Conclusion: The Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device infection rate was 2.1%. Hypertension and diabetes were common risk factors, and left ventricular dysfunction was common in high-energy devices with multiple leads and repeated procedures.

Clinical impact of capsulectomy during cardiac implantable electronic device generator replacement: a prospective randomized trial.

The avascular capsule around the generator of the cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) could be susceptible to bacterial colonization and source of infection. Capsulectomy during CIED generator replacement may be beneficial in preventing device infection, but there is a lack of evidence. This prospective randomized trial, conducted from December 2013 to December 2019, included 195 patients divided equally into two groups. In the intervention group (n = 97), capsule removal was performed on the floor of the pocket, while it was not performed in the control group (n = 98). In both groups, swab culture was performed in the pocket. The primary outcome was the occurrence of device infection requiring pocket revision. A total of 195 patients were included (mean age 70.2 ± 13.6years, 55.4% women), with an average follow-up period of 54.3 ± 28.9months. Among 182 patients undergoing microbiological cultures of pockets, 19 (10.4%) were confirmed positive, and Staphylococcus species were identified most frequently. The primary outcome occurred in 4 (2.1%), and there was no significant difference between the two groups (3.1% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.606). Hematoma has occurred in 10 patients (3.1% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.338), one of them required wound revision. In multivariable analysis, the occurrence of hematoma was the only independent risk factor associated with device infection (HR 13.6, 95% CI 1.02-181.15, p = 0.048). In this long-term prospective study, capsulectomy during the replacement of the generator did not reduce the incidence of device infection. There was no association between bacterial colonization in the capsule around the generator and CIED infection.

Effect of age on in-hospital outcomes of transvenous lead extraction for infected cardiac implantable electronic device.

The real-world data on the safety profile of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) for infected cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) among elderly patients is not well-established. This study aimed to evaluate the hospital outcomes between patients of different age groups who underwent TLE for infected CIED. Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, our study included patients aged ≥18 years who underwent TLE for infected CIED between 2017 and 2020. We divided the patients into four groups: Group A. Young (<50 years), Group B. Young intermediate (50-69 years old), Group C. Older intermediate (70-79 years old), and Group D. Octogenarian (≥80 years old). We then analyzed the in-hospital outcome and 30-day readmission between these age groups. A total of 10,928 patients who were admitted for TLE of infected CIED were included in this study: 982 (9.0%) patients in group A, 4,234 (38.7%) patients in group B, 3,204 (29.3%) patients in group C and 2,508 (23.0%) of patients in group D. Our study demonstrated that the risk of early mortality increased with older age (Group B vs. Group A: OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.19-3.09, p<.01; Group C vs. Group A: OR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.51-4.04, p<.01; Group D vs. Group A: OR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.69-4.72, p<.01). The risk of non-home discharge also increased in elderly groups (Group B vs. Group A: OR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.52-2.36; p<.01; Group C vs. Group A: OR: 2.82; 95% CI 2.24-3.56; p<.01; Group D vs. Group A: OR: 4.16; 95% CI: 3.28-5.28; p<.01). There was no significant difference in hospitalization length and 30-day readmission between different age groups. Apart from a higher rate of open heart surgery in group A, the procedural complications were comparable between these age groups. Elderly patients had worse in-hospital outcomes in early mortality and non-home discharge following the TLE for infected CIED. There was no significant difference between elderly and non-elderly groups in prolonged hospital stay and 30-day readmission. Elderly patients did not have a higher risk of procedural complications.

Automated electronic alert for the detection of infected cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in patients with bacteremia

Automated electronic alert for the detection of infected cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in patients with bacteremia

Device infection in patients undergoing pacemaker or defibrillator surgery: risk stratification using the PADIT score.

The use of an antibacterial envelope is cost-effective for patients at high risk of developing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. The identification of these high-risk patients may be facilitated using a clinical risk score. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the PADIT score for identifying high-risk patients in patients undergoing a CIED procedure in a tertiary academic center. This was a retrospective single-center study of consecutive patients undergoing a CIED procedure between January 2016 and November 2021. Patients who received an antibacterial envelope were excluded from this study. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for a CIED infection in the first year after the procedure. A total of 2333 CIED procedures were performed in the study period (mean age 61.6 ± 16.3years, male sex 64.5%, previous CIED infection 1.7%, immunocompromised 5.4%). The median PADIT score was 4 (interquartile range, 2-6). CIED infection occurred in 10 patients (0.43%). The PADIT score had good discrimination in predicting major CIED infection (C-statistic 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 0.86, P = 0.03). Using an optimal PADIT score cut-off value of 7, the risk of CIED infection was higher in the patients with a PADIT score of ≥ 7 in comparison to those with a lower PADIT score (1.23% vs. 0.26%, P = 0.02; odds ratio 4.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 16.6, P = 0.01). The PADIT score is a clinically useful score for identifying patients at high risk of developing CIED infection. The use of an antibacterial envelope in these high-risk patients may be cost-effective.

The BLISTER Score: A Novel, Externally Validated Tool for Predicting Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections, and Its Cost-Utility Implications for Antimicrobial Envelope Use.

Antimicrobial envelopes reduce the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infections, but their cost restricts routine use in the United Kingdom. Risk scoring could help to identify which patients would most benefit from this technology. A novel risk score (BLISTER [Blood results, Long procedure time, Immunosuppressed, Sixty years old (or younger), Type of procedure, Early re-intervention, Repeat procedure]) was derived from multivariate analysis of factors associated with cardiac implantable electronic device infection. Diagnostic utility was assessed against the existing PADIT score (Prior procedure, Age, Depressed renal function, Immunocompromised, Type of procedure) in both standard and high-risk external validation cohorts, and cost-utility models examined different BLISTER and PADIT score thresholds for TYRX (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN) antimicrobial envelope allocation. In a derivation cohort (n=7383), cardiac implantable electronic device infection occurred in 59 individuals within 12 months of a procedure (event rate, 0.8%). In addition to the PADIT score constituents, lead extraction (hazard ratio, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.9-6.1]; P<0.0001), C-reactive protein >50 mg/L (hazard ratio, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.4-6.4]; P=0.005), reintervention within 2 years (hazard ratio, 10.1 [95% CI, 5.6-17.9]; P<0.0001), and top-quartile procedure duration (hazard ratio, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.6-4.1]; P=0.001) were independent predictors of infection. The BLISTER score demonstrated superior discriminative performance versus PADIT in the standard risk (n=2854, event rate: 0.8%, area under the curve, 0.82 versus 0.71; P=0.001) and high-risk validation cohorts (n=1961, event rate: 2.0%, area under the curve, 0.77 versus 0.69; P=0.001), and in all patients (n=12 198, event rate: 1%, area under the curve, 0.8 versus 0.75, P=0.002). In decision-analytic modeling, the optimum scenario assigned antimicrobial envelopes to patients with BLISTER scores ≥6 (10.8%), delivering a significant reduction in infections (relative risk reduction, 30%; P=0.036) within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-utility thresholds (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £18 446). The BLISTER score (https://qxmd.com/calculate/calculator_876/the-blister-score-for-cied-infection) was a valid predictor of cardiac implantable electronic device infection, and could facilitate cost-effective antimicrobial envelope allocation to high-risk patients.

Unravelling staphylococcal small-colony variants in cardiac implantable electronic device infections: clinical characteristics, management, and genomic insights.

Staphylococcal small-colony variants (SCVs) are common in cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections. This is the first retrospective and multi-case study on CIED infections due to staphylococcal SCVs, aiming to provide a theoretical basis for the clinical management of CIED and device-related infections caused by staphylococcal SCVs. Ninety patients with culture positive CIED infections were enrolled between 2021 and 2022. We compared the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with and without SCVs and performed genomic studies on SCVs isolates. Compared to patients without SCVs, those with SCVs had a longer primary pacemaker implantation time and were more likely to have a history of device replacement and infection. They showed upregulated inflammatory indicators, especially higher NEUT% (52.6 vs. 26.8%, P = 0.032) and they had longer hospital stays (median 13 vs. 12 days, P = 0.012). Comparative genomics analysis was performed on Staphylococcus epidermidis wild-type and SCVs. Some genes were identified, including aap, genes encoding adhesin, CHAP domain-containing protein, LPXTG cell wall anchor domain-containing protein, and YSIRK-type signal peptide-containing protein. Staphylococcal SCVs affect the clinical characteristics of CIED infections. The process of staphylococcal SCVs adherence, biofilm formation, and interaction with neutrophils play a vital role.

Factors of mortality in patients with cardiac implantable electronic device: 5-year experience.

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices has increased in recent years. It has also brought some issues. Among these, the complications of cardiac implantable electronic devices infection and pocket hematoma are difficult to manage. It can be fatal with the contribution of patient-related risk factors. In this study, we aimed to find mortality rates in patients who developed cardiac implantable electronic devices infection and pocket hematoma over 5 years. We also investigated the risk factors affecting mortality in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. A total of 288 cardiac implantable electronic devices patients were evaluated. Demographic details, history, and clinical data of all patients were recorded. Cardiac implantable electronic devices infection was defined according to the modified Duke criteria. The national registry was used to ascertain the mortality status of the patients. The patients were divided into two groups (exitus and survival groups). In addition, the pocket hematoma was defined as significant bleeding at the pocket site after cardiac implantable electronic devices placement. The cardiac implantable electronic devices infection was similar in both groups (p=0.919), and the pocket hematoma was higher in the exitus group (p=0.019). The exitus group had higher usage of P2Y12 inhibitors (p≤0.001) and novel oral anticoagulants (p=0.031). The Cox regression analysis, including mortality-related factors, revealed that renal failure is the most significant risk factor for mortality. Renal failure was linked to a 2.78-fold higher risk of death. No correlation was observed between cardiac implantable electronic devices infection and mortality, whereas pocket hematoma was associated with mortality. Furthermore, renal failure was the cause of the highest mortality rate in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Microbiology of cardiac implantable electronic device infections in Calgary, Canada.

The microbiology of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections in Calgary, Alberta was described, identifying 50 infections from 2013 to 2019. The majority were Staphylococcus aureus (40.0%). There is significant economic burden, mostly related to inpatient costs, associated with CIED infections. However, there were no significant differences in costs stratified by organism.

Contemporary Management of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection: The American College of Cardiology COGNITO Survey

BackgroundCardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) infection remains a serious complication, causing increased morbidity and mortality. Early recognition and escalation to definitive therapy including extraction of the infected device often pose challenges. ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess U.S.-based physicians current practices in diagnosing and managing CIED infections and explore potential extraction barriers. MethodsAn observational survey was performed by the American College of Cardiology including U.S. physicians managing CIEDs from February to March 2022. Sampling techniques and screener questions determined eligibility. The survey featured questions on knowledge and experience with CIED infection patients and case scenarios. ResultsOf 387 physicians completing the survey (20% response rate), 49% indicated familiarity with current guidelines regarding CIED infection. Electrophysiologists (EPs) (91%) were more familiar with these guidelines, compared to non-EP cardiologists (29%) and primary care physicians (23%). Only 30% of physicians specified that their institution had guideline-based protocols in place for managing patients with CIED infection. When presented with pocket infection cases, approximately 89% of EPs and 50% of non-EP cardiologists would follow guideline recommendation to do complete CIED system removal, while 70% of primary care physicians did not recommend guideline-directed treatment. ConclusionsThere are gaps in familiarity of guidelines as well as the knowledge in practical management of CIED infection with non-extracting physicians. Most institutions lack a definite pathway. Addressing discrepancies, including guideline education and streamlining care or referral pathways, will be a key factor to bridging the gap and improving CIED infection patient outcomes.

Adherent skin barrier drape use is associated with a reduced risk of cardiac implantable device infection: Results from a prospective study of 14,225 procedures

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a costly and highly morbid complication. Perioperative interventions, including the use of antibiotic pouches and intensified perioperative antibiotic regimens, have demonstrated marginal efficacy at reducing CIED infection. Additional research is needed to identify additional interventions to reduce infection risk. We sought to evaluate whether adherent skin barrier drape use is associated with a reduction in CIED infection. A prospective registry of all CIED implantation procedures was established at our institution in January 2007. The registry was established in collaboration with our hospital infection prevention team with a specific focus on prospectively identifying all potential CIED infections. All potential CIED infections were independently adjudicated by 2 physicians blinded to the use of an adherent skin barrier drape. Over a 13-year period, 14,225 procedures were completed (mean age 72 ± 14 years; female 4,918 (35%); new implants 10,005 (70%); pulse generator changes 2585 (18%); upgrades 1635 (11%). Of those, 2469 procedures (17.4%) were performed using an adherent skin barrier drape. There were 103 adjudicated device infections (0.73%). The infection rate in patients in the barrier use groups was 8 of 2469 (0.32%) as compared with 95 of 11,756 (0.8%) in the nonuse group (P = .0084). In multivariable analysis, the use of an adherent skin barrier drape was independently associated with a reduction in infection (odds ratio 0.32; 95% confidence interval 0.154-0.665; P = .002). The use of an adherent skin barrier drape at the time of cardiac device surgery is associated with a lower risk of subsequent infection.

Leadless Pacemaker Infection Risk in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: A Case Series and Literature Review.

(1) Background: Leadless pacemakers (LPs) have been proposed as a reimplantation strategy in pacing-dependent patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) extraction for infection. In this study, we analysed the risk of LP infection when this device is implanted before lead extraction. (2) Methods: This was a retrospective study including patients who underwent LP implantation between 2017 and 2022. Patients were divided in two groups according to whether LP was implanted following CIED extraction for infection (Group 1) or other indications (Group 2). The primary aim was to describe the risk of LP infection. (3) Results: We included in this study 49 patients with a median age of 81 [20-94] years, mostly males (36, 73%). In Group 1 patients, 17 cases (85%) showed systemic CIED infections, and 11 (55%) had positive lead cultures. Most Group 1 cases (n = 14, 70%) underwent one stage of LP implantation and CIED extraction. Mortality rate during follow-up was 20% (nine patients). Patients were followed up for a median of 927 [41-1925], days and no cases of definite or suspected LP infections were identified. (4) Conclusions: The risk of LP infection was extremely low. LP appears as a potential option for reimplantation in this setting and should be considered in pacing-dependent patients at a high risk of CIED infection recurrence.