Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infections

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Infection Assessment, Diagnosis and Management: A Review of the Literature

The use of increasingly complex cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has increased exponentially in recent years. One of the most serious complications in terms of mortality, morbidity and financial burden is represented by infections involving these devices. They may affect only the generator pocket or be generalised with lead-related endocarditis. Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors have been identified and they can be associated with patient or procedure characteristics or with the type of CIED. Pocket and systemic infections require a precise evaluation and a specialised treatment which in most cases involves the removal of all the components of the device and a personalised antimicrobial therapy. CIED retention is usually limited to cases where infection is unlikely or is limited to the skin incision site. Optimal re-implantation timing depends on the type of infection and on the results of microbiological tests. Preventive strategies, in the end, include antibiotic prophylaxis before CIED implantation, the possibility to use antibacterial envelopes and the prevention of hematomas. The aim of this review is to investigate the pathogenesis, stratification, diagnostic tools and management of CIED infections.

Rate of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device-Related Infection at a Tertiary Hospital in Saudi Arabia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are long-term cardiac treatments that address a variety of cardiac diseases. In the recent years, a steady growth has been noticed in CIEDs, mainly due to expanding indications for their usage. Possible device-related infection, whether pocket or systemic, which leads to high morbidity and mortality, is one of the most worrying complications. In addition, there are limited studies conducted on the topic of CIED infection rate and their clinical presentation both regionally and locally.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the medical records of all patients with CIEDs who presented to our medical center (implanted, followed up, or referred to our hospital) between January 2016 and January 2019.The medical records were extracted from the BestCare electronic medical records system (ezCaretech Co, Seoul, Korea). All consecutive patients were included as we had no exclusion criteria.

Results

During the three years of the study period, a total of 612 patients with CIEDs were identified at our medical center. Among this cohort, 436 subjects (71.2%) were male and 176 (28.8%) were female. Thirty-four patients experienced device-related infections from among the total patient population (n = 612) who presented with CIEDs between January 2016 and January 2019, for a total rate of 5.6%. Of the infected patients, 29 (85%) presented with local infections and five (15%) presented with systemic infections.

Conclusion

The infection rate of 5.6% observed in this study was higher than expected. Therefore, we conclude that action should be taken to reduce infection rates at our medical center to at least that seen in prior studies or below that, if possible. Moreover, we found that CIED infections were often caused by Staphylococcus species and commonly affected the elderly and patients with chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension. Most of the identified cases were local infections, although systemic infections were common in those with renal disease. Further studies are needed to control the risk factors and to better understand the role of antibiotics, antiseptic prophylaxis, and other methods in avoiding CIED infection and associated complications.

Impact of Choice of Prophylaxis on the Microbiology of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Insights From the Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT)

Background

The Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) investigated whether intensification of perioperative prophylaxis could prevent cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections. Compared with a single dose of cefazolin, the perioperative administration of cefazolin, vancomycin, bacitracin, and cephalexin did not significantly decrease the risk of infection. Our objective was to compare the microbiology of infections between study arms in PADIT.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis. Differences between study arms in the microbiology of infections were assessed at the level of individual patients and at the level of microorganisms using the Fisher exact test.

Results

Overall, 209 microorganisms were reported from 177 patients. The most common microorganisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS; 82/209 [39.2%]) and S. aureus (75/209 [35.9%]). There was a significantly lower proportion of CoNS in the incremental arm compared with the standard arm (30.1% vs 46.6%; P = .04). However, there was no significant difference between study arms in the frequency of recovery of other microorganisms. In terms of antimicrobial susceptibility, 26.5% of microorganisms were resistant to cefazolin. CoNS were more likely to be cefazolin-resistant in the incremental arm (52.2% vs 26.8%, respectively; P = .05). However, there was no difference between study arms in terms of infections in which the main pathogen was sensitive to cefazolin (77.8% vs 64.3%; P = .10) or vancomycin (90.8% vs 90.2%; P = .90).

Conclusions

Intensification of the prophylaxis led to significant changes in the microbiology of infections, despite the absence of a decrease in the overall risk of infections. These findings provide important insight on the physiopathology of CIED infections.

Trial registration

NCT01002911.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections; Long-Term Outcome after Extraction and Antibiotic Treatment

Background: The aim of the study was to examine the treatment outcome for patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections after extraction. Methods: Patients who underwent CIED extractions due to an infection at Karolinska University Hospital 2006–2015 were analyzed. Results: In total, 165 patients were reviewed, 104 (63%) with pocket infection and 61 (37%) with systemic infection. Of the patients with systemic infection, 34 and 25 patients fulfilled the criteria for definite and possible endocarditis, respectively. Complications after extraction occurred only in one patient. Reimplantation was made after a mean of 9.5 days and performed in 81% of those with pocket infection and 44.3% in systemic infection. Infection with the new device occurred in 4.6%. The mean length of hospital stay for patients with pocket infection was 5.7 days, compared to 38.6 days in systemic infection. One-year mortality was 7.7% and 22.2% in pocket infection and systemic infection, respectively. Patients with Staphylococcus aureus infection had a higher mortality. Conclusions: In this study, the majority of the patients had a pocket CIED infection, with a short hospital stay. Patients with a systemic infection, and S. aureus etiology, had a prolonged hospital stay and a higher mortality.

Infective endocarditis in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a nationwide study

AIMS

Patients with infective endocarditis (IE) frequently have cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Here, we aim to define the clinical profile and prognostic factors of IE in these patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Infective endocarditis cases were prospectively identified in the Spanish National Endocarditis Registry. From 3996 IE, 708 (17.7%) had a CIED and 424 CIED-related IE (lead vegetation). Patients with a CIED were older (68 ± 11 vs. 73 ± 8 years); had more comorbidities {pulmonary disease [176 (24.8%) vs. 545 (16.7%)], renal disease [239 (33.8%) vs. 740 (22.7%)], diabetes [248 (35.0%) vs. 867 (26.6%)], and heart failure [348 (49.2%) vs. 978 (29.9%)]}; and fewer complications {intracardiac destruction [106 (15%) vs. 1077 (33.1%)], heart failure [215 (30.3%) vs. 1340 (41.1%)], embolism [107 (15.1%) vs. 714 (21.9%)], and neurological involvement [77 (10.8%) vs. 702 (21.5%)]} (all P-values <0.001) in comparison to subjects without a CIED. In-hospital mortality was similar in patients with and without CIED [171 (24.2%) vs. 881 (27.0%), P = 0.82]. In subjects with a CIED, CIED-related IE was independently associated with in-hospital survival: odds ratio (OR) 0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-0.7, P = 0.001]. Surgery was independently associated with in-hospital survival in CIED-related IE: OR 0.4 (95% CI 0.2-0.7, P = 0.004); but not in subjects with valve IE and no CIED lead involvement: OR 0.9 (95% CI 0.5-1.7, P = 0.77).

CONCLUSION

Over a sixth of IE patients have a CIED. This group of patients is older, with more comorbidities and fewer IE-related complications in comparison to subjects without a CIED. In-hospital mortality was similar in patients with and without a CIED.

Rare enough ? Cardiac Device-related pocket Infection due to Mycobacterium fortuitum

Nontuberculous mycobacteria are rare causes of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-related infections and may lead to device-related endocarditis, so preventing them is key. We present a case of CIED-related pocket infection due to Mycobacterium fortuitum which highlights the challenges in management of such infections.

Implant-Associated Infections: A Review of the Safety of Cardiac Implants

Cardiac implantations are among the most critical, and life-saving patient management procedures. Most cardiac implantations are performed to correct abnormalities in the conduction and the rhythm of the heart. Because the implants are intended for long-term use ranging from months to years, the failure of an implant is considered a major setback both in the patients as well as surgeons' perspectives. Implant failures can have multifactorial reasons, amongst which infectious causes need to be adequately addressed. This review attempts to evaluate the nature of implants, etiology, predisposing factors, infection control, and preventive strategies for cardiac implant-associated infections.

Endovascular Neuromodulation: Safety Profile and Future Directions

Endovascular neuromodulation is an emerging technology that represents a synthesis between interventional neurology and neural engineering. The prototypical endovascular neural interface is the Stentrode^TM, a stent-electrode array which can be implanted into the superior sagittal sinus via percutaneous catheter venography, and transmits signals through a transvenous lead to a receiver located subcutaneously in the chest. Whilst the Stentrode^TM has been conceptually validated in ovine models, questions remain about the long term viability and safety of this device in human recipients. Although technical precedence for venous sinus stenting already exists in the setting of idiopathic intracranial hypertension, long term implantation of a lead within the intracranial veins has never been previously achieved. Contrastingly, transvenous leads have been successfully employed for decades in the setting of implantable cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators. In the current absence of human data on the Stentrode^TM, the literature on these structurally comparable devices provides valuable lessons that can be translated to the setting of endovascular neuromodulation. This review will explore this literature in order to understand the potential risks of the Stentrode^TM and define avenues where further research and development are necessary in order to optimize this device for human application.

Candida spp./Bacteria Mixed Biofilms

The ability to form biofilms is a common feature of microorganisms, such as bacteria or fungi. These consortiums can colonize a variety of surfaces, such as host tissues, dentures, and catheters, resulting in infections highly resistant to drugs, when compared with their planktonic counterparts. This refractory effect is particularly critical in polymicrobial biofilms involving both fungi and bacteria. This review emphasizes Candida spp.-bacteria biofilms, the epidemiology of this community, the challenges in the eradication of such biofilms, and the most relevant treatments.

Clinical Trial Registration and Reporting: Drug Therapy and Prevention of Cardiac-Related Infections

Objective: Clinical trials are the source of evidence. ClinicalTrials.gov is valuable for analyzing current conditions. Until now, the state of drug interventions for heart infections is unknown. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess the characteristics of trials on cardiac-related infections and the status of drug interventions.

Methods: The website ClinicalTrials.gov was used to obtain all registered clinical trials on drug interventions for cardiac-related infections as of February 16, 2019. All registration studies were collected, regardless of their recruitment status, research results, and research type. Registration information, results, and weblink-publications of those trials were analyzed.

Results: A total of 45 eligible trials were evaluated and 86.7% of them began from or after 2008 while 91.1% of them adopted interventional study design. Of all trials, 35.6% were completed and 15.6% terminated. Besides, 62.2% of interventional clinical trials recruited more than 100 subjects. Meanwhile, 86.7% of the eligible trials included adult subjects only. Of intervention trials, 65.8% were in the third or fourth phase; 78.1% adopted randomized parallel assignment, containing two groups; 53.6% were masking, and 61.0% described treatment. Moreover, 41.5% of the trials were conducted in North America while 29.3% in Europe. Sponsors for 40.0% of the studies were from the industry. Furthermore, 48.9% of the trials mentioned information on monitoring committees, 24.4% have been published online, and 13.3% have uploaded their results. Drugs for treatments mainly contained antibiotics, among which glycopeptides, β-lactams, and lipopeptides were the most commonly studied ones in experimental group, with the former ones more common. Additionally, 16.2% of the trials evaluated new antimicrobials.

Conclusions: Most clinical trials on cardiac-related infections registered at ClinicalTrials.gov were interventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for treatment. Most drugs focused in trials were old antibiotics, and few trials reported valid results. It is necessary to strengthen supervision over improvements in results, and to combine antibacterial activity with drug delivery regimens to achieve optimal clinical outcomes.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator pocket infection caused by Mycobacterium fortuitum: a case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

With the rising utilization of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), infections secondary to device implantation are increasingly encountered. Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci are usually the predominant causative organisms. A CIED infection due to non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) is extremely rare.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 68-year-old man was admitted to our hospital with a history of pain and swelling at his cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) pocket site, for 4 days. The CRT-D had been implanted 2 weeks prior. The exudate smear was positive for acid-fast bacilli and culture results revealed rapidly growing nontuberculous mycobacteria (RGM). After an urgent removal of the device followed by 1 year of antibiotic treatment, the patient was completely cured. A new device was finally implanted, 3 years later.

CONCLUSIONS

Infections caused by nontuberculous mycobacteria following the implantation of cardiac devices are very rare. The typical manifestations of post-implantation CIED infections caused by RGMs include an early onset, with local redness, swelling, and spontaneous drainage. Systemic symptoms such as fever, chills, and fatigue are absent. Mycobacterium fortuitum is the most common species of RGM implicated in CIED infections, the manifestations of which usually appear within several weeks of the implantation procedure. An urgent removal of the device and appropriate antibiotic therapy are essential therapeutic measures. This is the first such reported case, in which the patient has been re-implanted with another device at the same site, after achieving a complete cure. We followed-up the patient for an additional 3 years and observed that the patient remained free of infection. Our case report shows that though an RGM infection is rare and difficult to treat, it can be completely cured. In addition, we demonstrated that it is subsequently possible to safely re-implant a CIED for the patient, at the same site.