Strategies to prevent infections associated with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

Use of a taurolidine containing antimicrobial wash to reduce cardiac implantable electronic device infection

AIMS

TauroPace (Tauropharm, Bavaria Germany), a taurolidine solution for combating cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, was compared with a historical control of 3% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in a prospective observational study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The device pocket was irrigated, and all hardware accessible within (leads, suture sleeves, pulse generator) was wiped with H2O2, TauroPace, or taurolidine in a galenic formulation during any invasive CIED procedure at the study centre. Only CIED procedures covered by TauroPace or H2O2 from 1 January 2017 to 28 February 2022 were included for analysis. Patients who underwent >1 procedure were censored for the last treatment group and reassigned at the next procedure. The primary endpoint was major CIED infection within 3 months. The secondary endpoints were CIED infection beyond 3 months, adverse events potentially related to the antimicrobial solutions, CIED system, procedure, and death, till the end of follow-up. TauroPace covered 654 procedures on 631 patients, and H2O2 covered 551 procedures on 532 patients. The TauroPace group had more patient risk factors for infection than the H2O2 group (P = 0.0058) but similar device and procedure-specific risk factors (P = 0.17). Cardiac implantable electronic device infection occurred in 0/654 (0%) of the TauroPace group and 6/551 (1.1%) of the H2O2 group (P = 0.0075). Death occurred in 23/654 (3.5%) of the TauroPace group and 14/551 (2.5%) of the H2O2 group (P = 0.33). Non-infection related adverse events were rarer in the TauroPace (3.8%) than the H2O2 (6.0%) group (P = 0.0802).

CONCLUSION

TauroPace is safe but more effective than H2O2 in reducing CIED infection.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05576194.

Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection and New Insights About Correlation Between Pro-inflammatory Markers and Heart Failure: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Surgical approaches to treat patients with abnormal pro-inflammatory parameters remain controversial, and the debate on the correlation between hematological parameter alteration in cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection and the increase in mortality continues.

Methods: We performed a systematic review using the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Twenty-two articles from May 2007 to April 2020 were selected and divided according to the following topics: prevalence of microbes in patients with CIED infection; characteristics of patients with CIED infection; comparison between patients who underwent and did not undergo replantation after device extraction; and correlation between alteration of hematological parameters and poor prognosis analysis.

Results: Epidemiological analysis confirmed high prevalence of male sex, staphylococcal infection, and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS). The most common comorbidity was heart failure. Complete removal of CIED and antimicrobial therapy combination are the gold standard. CIED replacement was associated with higher survival. High preoperative white blood cell count and C-reactive protein levels increased the risk of right ventricular failure (RVF) development. Increased red blood cell distribution width (RDW) value or decreased platelet count was correlated with poor prognosis. No correlation was noted between preoperative leukocytosis and CIED infection.

Discussion: A relevant correlation between leukocytosis and RVF was observed. Heart failure may be related to high RDW values and decreased platelet count. Data on the correlation between hematological parameter alteration and poor prognosis are missing in many studies because of delayed implantation in patients showing signs of infection.

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.

Postoperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis Following Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Placement

Infections related to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement are associated with poor clinical outcomes. As such, preprocedural prophylactic antibiotic therapy is indicated for all patients prior to device insertion. However, the available data are less clear on the impact of postprocedural antibiotic therapy on rates of CIED infection when used in addition to preprocedural therapy. This is single-center, retrospective cohort study of 913 patients who underwent CIED-related procedures between October 2010 and August 2014 sought to compare the rate of CIED infections in patients receiving only preprocedural antibiotics with those receiving both preprocedural and postprocedural antibiotics. Univariate analysis was used to detect independent risk factors for CIED infection. After excluding patients receiving concomitant antibiotics for other conditions, those undergoing CIED extraction alone, and those with a lack of follow-up data and/or adequate documentation of clinical encounters, 569 patients were identified for inclusion in the final analysis. The majority of patients who received postprocedural antibiotics received three to five days of therapy, with the most common antibiotic used being cephalexin. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of infection between patients who did and did not receive postoperative antibiotics (4.5% versus 6.1%; p = 0.398). In a multivariate analysis, the use of postprocedural antibiotic therapy was not a significant risk factor for infection (adjusted odds ratio: 0.692; 95% confidence interval: 0.314–1.525; p = 0.361). It is therefore reasonable to withhold prescribing postoperative antibiotics in patients following CIED implantation. Individualized risk factor evaluation of patient comorbidities and procedural characteristics may be needed to aid in determining whether postoperative antibiotics are reasonable in different patients. The validity of these findings is contingent on further confirmation via a prospective, randomized clinical trial.

Infection Management

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and the indications for their use have significantly risen over the past decades to include patients who are older with more medical comorbidities. Predictably, the rates of CIED infection have increased substantially. CIED infection is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and financial costs. This article discusses the appropriate management of CIED infections, which is imperative to limit the problems associated with infection.

Proposal for a Novel Score to Determine the Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has expanded in recent years. Infection related to these devices constitutes one of the main complications and is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and financial cost. The aim of this study was to construct a predictive risk score of acquiring CIED infection.

METHODS

We designed a retrospective, nested case-control study. Both cases and controls belonged to a cohort that included all patients who underwent a CIED-related procedure between January 2009 and December 2015. Cases were defined as patients with infection, and 3 infection-free controls were randomly selected from the cohort for each case included.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2323 procedures were performed. A total of 33 CIED-related infections were identified. Ninety-nine patients were selected as controls. Independent risk factors were the Charlson index (OR, 1.33; 95%CI, 1.07-1.67), oral anticoagulation (OR, 3.51; 95%CI, 1.44-8.54), revision or replacement of a previous device (OR, 2.75; 95%CI, 1.12-6.71) and the presence of more than 2 leads (OR, 3.42; 95%CI, 1.25-9.37). A predictive risk score was generated and denominated CIED-AI (Charlson Index, more than 2 leads/Electrodes, Device revision/replacement, oral Anticoagulation, previous Infection). This score had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95%CI, 0.71-0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

The CIED-AI score may help to identify patients at higher risk of infection, who could be candidates for intensive preventive measures.