Antibiotic envelope is associated with reduction in cardiac implantable electronic devices infections especially for high-power device-Systematic review and meta-analysis

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Measures to Prevent Infection in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Replacements or Upgrades

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections represent one of the most threatening complications associated with device implantation, due to an increase in morbidity and mortality rates, as well as healthcare costs. Besides, it is important to highlight that when compared to the initial implantation of a device, the risks associated with procedures like generator changes, lead and pocket revisions, or device upgrades double. Consequently, to address this issue, various scoring systems, like the PADIT (Prior Procedures, Age, Depressed Renal Function, Immunocompromised Status, Type of Procedure), the RI-AIAC (Ricerca Sulle Infezioni Associate a ImpiAnto o Sostituzione di CIED), and the Shariff score, along with predictive models, have been developed to identify patients at a greater risk of infection. Moreover, several interventions have been assessed to evaluate their role in infection prevention ranging from improving skin preparation and surgical techniques to considering alternative strategies such as the subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD). Methods like antimicrobial prophylaxis, pocket irrigation, chlorhexidine gluconate pocket lavage, capsulectomy, and the use of antibacterial envelopes have been also explored as preventive measures. In this review, we provide a comprehensive assessment of CIED infections in patients undergoing repeat procedures and the strategies designed to reduce the risk of these infections.

REducing INFectiOns thRough Cardiac device Envelope: insight from real world data. The REINFORCE project

AIMS

Infections resulting from cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation are severely impacting on patients' and on health care systems. The use of TYRXTM absorbable antibiotic-eluting envelope has proven to decrease major CIED infections within 12 months of CIED surgery. The aim is to evaluate the impact of the envelope use on infection-related clinical events in a real-world contemporary patient population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data on patients undergoing CIED surgery were collected prospectively by participating centers of the One Hospital ClinicalService project. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether TYRXTM absorbable antibiotic-eluting envelope was used or not. Out of 1819 patients, 872 (47.9%) were implanted with an absorbable antibiotic-eluting envelope and included in the Envelope group and 947 (52.1%) patients who did not receive an envelope were included in the Control group. Compared to control, patients in the Envelope group had higher thrombo-embolic or hemorrhagic risk, higher BMI, lower LVEF and more comorbidities. During a mean follow-up of 1.4 years, the incidence of infection-related events was significantly higher in the control compared to the Envelope group (2.4% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.007). The five-year cumulative incidence of infection-related events was 8.1% in the control and 2.1% in the Envelope group (HR: 0.34, 95%CI: 0.14-0.80, P = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

In our analysis, the use of an absorbable antibiotic-eluting envelope in the general CIED population was associated with a lower risk of systemic and pocket infection.

Implantable Pulse Generators for Deep Brain Stimulation: Challenges, Complications, and Strategies for Practicality and Longevity

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) represents an important treatment modality for movement disorders and other circuitopathies. Despite their miniaturization and increasing sophistication, DBS systems share a common set of components of which the implantable pulse generator (IPG) is the core power supply and programmable element. Here we provide an overview of key hardware and software specifications of commercially available IPG systems such as rechargeability, MRI compatibility, electrode configuration, pulse delivery, IPG case architecture, and local field potential sensing. We present evidence-based approaches to mitigate hardware complications, of which infection represents the most important factor. Strategies correlating positively with decreased complications include antibiotic impregnation and co-administration and other surgical considerations during IPG implantation such as the use of tack-up sutures and smaller profile devices.Strategies aimed at maximizing battery longevity include patient-related elements such as reliability of IPG recharging or consistency of nightly device shutoff, and device-specific such as parameter delivery, choice of lead configuration, implantation location, and careful selection of electrode materials to minimize impedance mismatch. Finally, experimental DBS systems such as ultrasound, magnetoelectric nanoparticles, and near-infrared that use extracorporeal powered neuromodulation strategies are described as potential future directions for minimally invasive treatment.

Antibiotic eluting envelopes: evidence, technology, and defining high-risk populations

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) are effective and important components of modern cardiovascular care. Despite the dramatic improvements in the functionality and reliability of these devices, over time patients are at risk for developing several morbidities, the most feared of which are local and systemic infections. Despite significant financial investment and aggressive therapy with hospitalization, intravenous antibiotics, and transvenous lead extraction, the outcomes include a 1-year mortality rate as high as 25%. This risk of infection has increased over time, likely due to the increased complexity of the surgical interventions required to insert and replace these devices. The only way to reduce this morbidity and mortality is to prevent these infections, and other than preoperative antibiotics, there were little data supporting effective therapy until the WRAP-IT trial provided randomized data showing that pocket infections can be reduced by 60% at 12 months and major CIED infections reduced by 40% at 1 year with the use of the absorbable antibiotic eluting envelope in patient CIED procedures at high risk of infection. Not all CIED procedures are at high risk of infection and justify the use of the envelope, but cost-effectiveness data support the use of the antibiotic envelope particularly in patients with defibrillator replacements, revisions, and upgrades, such as to a resynchronization device and in patients with prior CIED infection, history of immunocompromise, two or more prior procedures, or a history of renal dysfunction.

The role of an antibiotic envelope in the prevention of major cardiac implantable electronic device infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, rates of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) related infections have increased and been associated with increased morbidity, mortality and financial burden on healthcare systems.

METHODS

To examine the effect of an antibacterial envelope in reducing major CIED related infections, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching PubMed/MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Google scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov for studies that examined the effect of an antibiotic envelope in reducing major related CIED infections, comprising of device-related endocarditis, systemic infection requiring systemic antibiotics and or device extraction, compared to control up till February 15th, 2020. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted by calculating risk ratios (RR) and respective 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

We include 6 studies that comprise of 11,897 patients, of which 5844 received an antibiotic envelope and 6053 did not. Compared with control, utilization of an antibiotic envelope at the time of procedure was associated with a significant 74% relative risk reduction in major CIED related infections among patients at high risk for infection (RR: 0.26 [95% CI, 0.08-0.85]; P = .03), while no significant reduction was observed among patients enrolled from studies with any risk for infection (RR: 0.53 [95% CI, 0.06-4.52]; P = .56). Additionally, no reduction in mortality among patients that received an envelope compared to control was observed (RR: 1.15 [95% CI, 0.53-2.50]; P = .72).

CONCLUSION

The utilization of an antibiotic envelope at the time of device implantation or upgrade reduces major CIED infections, especially if used in patients perceived to be at higher risk for infection.