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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

A total of 195 patients were included (mean age 70.2 ± 13.6 years, 55.4% women), with an average follow-up period of 54.3 ± 28.9 months. 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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Do barrier dressings reduce cardiac implantable device infection: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial (BARRIER-PROTECT)

Background

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures can be associated with serious complications, including infection with significant mortality and morbidity, necessitating removal of the device and prolonged hospitalization. One potential pathophysiological mechanism is pocket contamination at the time of device implantation. Therefore, steps taken to prevent contamination at this stage can potentially reduce CIED infections.The barrier dressing, an adhesive material applied to the skin, has the potential to reduce the colonization of the surgical site with host flora that can predispose to infection. There are a limited number of randomized prospective studies on barrier dressing use during various surgeries, but it has never been systematically studied in CIED implantation.

Objectives

Do Barrier Dressings Reduce Cardiac Implantable Device Infection? (BARRIER-PROTECT trial; NCT04591366) is a single-centre, prospective, double-armed, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the use of an intra-operative adhesive barrier dressing to reduce the risk of end-of-procedure pocket swab positivity. We hypothesize that adhesive draping during implant procedures will reduce the risk of contamination from the skin flora. Also, we aim to investigate if the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity can be used as a potential surrogate marker of CIED infection.

Methods and Design

Patients undergoing a second or later procedure on the same device pocket (pulse generator change, lead/pocket revision or upgrade) will be enrolled. Eligible and consenting patients will be equally randomized to the use of barrier dressing or not using an automated web-based system. Patients, but not the operator, will be blinded to the arm. The person performing the pocket swabs will also be blinded. The primary endpoint is the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity. The main secondary endpoint is the CIED infection rate.

Discussion

This is the first randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of using a barrier adhesive draping on reducing the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity. In this study, we are exploring a low-cost intervention that may significantly reduce CIED infection. Also, having a valid surrogate marker for CIED infection at the time of implant will facilitate design of future clinical trials.

Chlorhexidine gluconate pocket lavage to prevent cardiac implantable electronic device infection in high-risk procedures

BACKGROUND

Infection is the most dreaded complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), particularly in patients undergoing high-risk procedures (eg, generator change, device upgrade, lead/pocket revision).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the impact of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) pocket lavage in high-risk procedures.

METHODS

Patients from a prospective multicenter registry undergoing high-risk procedures were included. CHG lavage was performed by irrigating the generator pocket with 20 cc of 2% CHG without alcohol followed by and normal saline (NS) irrigation. Only NS irrigation was performed in the comparison group. The primary efficacy outcome was CIED-related infection at 12 months. The primary safety outcome was any CHG-associated adverse event. The secondary outcome was CIED infection during long-term follow-up. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed for the primary efficacy outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 1504 patients were included. At 12-month follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome occurred in 4 of 904 CHG (0.4%) and 14 of 600 NS (2.3%) subjects (log-rank P = .005). On multivariate analysis, the use of CHG irrigation was associated with a lower risk of infection at 1-year follow-up (Cox proportional hazard ratio [HR] 0.138; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.45; P = .001). This effect persisted during long-term follow-up. PSM demonstrated a significant reduction in CIED-related infection for the CHG group (0.2% vs 2.5%; Cox proportional HR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.59; P = .014). No adverse events were associated with the use of CHG.

CONCLUSION

CHG lavage during high-risk procedures was associated with a reduction in CIED-related infections without any adverse events reported. The benefits of CHG lavage were observed even during long-term follow up and in PSM analysis.

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.

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.

The European TauroPace™ Registry

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement comes with certain complications. CIED infection is a severe adverse event related to CIED placement. In randomised controlled trials, the preoperative intravenous administration of antibiotics and the adjunctive use of an antibiotic mesh envelope resulted in significant reduction in infections related to cardiac implantable electronic devices. The adjunctive use of taurolidine for this purpose is relatively novel and not considered in the guidelines. The required evidence may consist of a set of clinical studies.

METHODS

The European TauroPaceTM registry (ETPR) prospectively evaluates every consecutive invasive procedure involving any CIED with adjunct TauroPace™ use in the contributing centres. As the estimation of the infection rate needs to be defensible, only interventions registered prior to the procedure will be followed-up. The endpoint is a major cardiac implantable electronic device infection according to the novel CIED infection criteria (1). Secondary endpoints comprise all-cause mortality, complications, adverse events of all grades, and major CIED infections during all follow-up examinations. The follow-up times are three months, twelve months, and eventually 36 months, as acute, subacute, and long-term CIED infections are of interest.

RESULTS

As the rate of CIED infections is expected to be very low, this registry is a multicentre, international project that will run for several years. Several reports are planned. The analyses will be included in the case number calculations for future randomised controlled trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The ETPR will accumulate large case numbers to estimate small event rates more precisely; we intend to follow up on participants for years to reveal possible late effects.

Complicated Pocket Infection in Patients Undergoing Lead Extraction: Characteristics and Outcomes

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection can present with pocket or systemic manifestations, both necessitating complete device removal and pathogen-directed antimicrobial therapy. Here, we aim to characterize those presenting with both pocket and systemic infection. A retrospective analysis of CIED extraction procedures included 300 patients divided into isolated pocket (n = 104, 34.7%), complicated pocket (n = 54, 18%), and systemic infection (n = 142, 47.3%) groups. The systemic and complicated pocket groups frequently presented with leukocytosis and fever > 37.8, as opposed to the isolated pocket group. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen in the systemic and complicated pocket groups (43.7% and 31.5%, respectively), while Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CONS) predominated (31.7%) in the isolated pocket group (10.6%, p < 0.001). No differences were observed in procedural success or complications rates. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis found that at three years of follow-up, the rate of all-cause mortality was significantly higher among patients with systemic infection compared to both pocket groups (p < 0.001), with the curves diverging at thirty days. In this study, we characterize a new entity of complicated pocket infection. Despite the systemic pattern of infection, their prognosis is similar to isolated pocket infection. We suggest that this special category be presented separately in future publications of CIED infections.

Risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic device infections: a nationwide Danish study

AIMS

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a severe complication to modern management of cardiac arrhythmias. The CIED type and the type of surgery are recognized as risk factors for CIED infections, but knowledge of patient-related risk factors is scarce. This study aimed to identify lifelong patient-related risk factors for CIED infections.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive Danish patients undergoing a CIED implantation or reoperation between January 1996 and April 2018 were included. The cohort consisted of 84 429 patients undergoing 108 494 CIED surgeries with a combined follow-up of 458 257 CIED-years. A total of 1556 CIED explantations were classified as either pocket (n = 1022) or systemic CIED infection (n = 534). Data were cross-linked with records from the Danish National Patient Registry and the Danish National Prescription Registry. Using multiple-record and multiple-event per subject proportional hazard analysis, specific patient-related risk factors were identified but with several variations amongst the subtypes of CIED infection. CIED reoperations were associated with the highest risk of pocket CIED infection but also CIED type, young age, and prior valvular surgery [hazard ratio (HR): 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-2.04]. Severe renal insufficiency/dialysis (HR: 2.40, 95% CI: 1.65-3.49), dermatitis (HR: 2.80, 95% CI: 1.92-4.05), and prior valvular surgery (HR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.59-2.75) were associated with the highest risk of systemic CIED infections. Congestive heart failure, ischaemic heart disease, malignancy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and temporary pacing were not significant at multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Specific comorbidities and surgical procedures were associated with a higher risk of CIED infections but with variations amongst pocket and systemic CIED infection. Pocket CIED infections were associated with CIED reoperations, young age and more complex type of CIED, whereas systemic CIED infections were associated with risk factors predisposing to bacteraemia.

Early, Delayed and Late Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Do the Timing of Onset and Pathogens Matter?

Infections involving cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) occur at different times after device-related procedures. The aim of this study was to investigate the timing of onset and factors influencing the occurrence of all types of CIED infections to identify the type of pathogen and to examine the long-term survival of patients with all types of CIED infections. We performed a post hoc analysis of the clinical data from 3344 patients who underwent transvenous lead extraction (TLE) at a single high-volume center between 2006 and 2020, including a group of 890 patients with CIED infections. The occurrence of pocket infection (PI), lead-related infective endocarditis (LRIE) and PI coexisting with LRIE (PI + LRIE) was assessed at the following time intervals: 0−12 months, 13−36 months and > 36 months since last CIED-related procedure. In the study group, there were 274 (30.79%) early infections, 266 (29.89%) delayed infections and 350 (39.32%) late infections. Pocket infection was the most common early complication (97; 39.43%), while LRIE was predominant over 36 months from the last CIED procedure (172; 54.09%). The most common early infections were PIs that were associated with the preceding CIED-related procedure. Late LRIE was most likely to occur in patients with intracardiac lead abrasion. The probability of early versus late LRIE was higher in patients with CoNS cultures. The timing of infection onset irrespective of its type does not affect long-term survival after transvenous lead extraction. The majority of infectious complications (69%) occur more than 12 months after the last CIED-related procedure. Early infections are probably associated with pocket contamination during CIED-related procedure, while delayed and late systemic infections are related to other lead-dependent factors (especially to intracardiac lead abrasion). Time to LRIE onset is associated with pathogen type. The timing of symptom onset does not affect long-term survival after TLE.

Salvage of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Pocket Infection with Skin Erosion in Frail 92-Year-Old

We reported the novel use of a taurolidine-containing antimicrobial solution in the successful salvage of a partially exposed and polymicrobially infected cardiac implantable electronic device pulse generator in a frail patient unfit for lead extraction. The old, salvaged device was entirely internalized, and there were no signs of recurrent infection at 9 months follow-up.

Risk Stratifying and Prognostic Analysis of Subclinical Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Infection: Insight From Traditional Bacterial Culture

Background

Subclinical infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is a common condition and increases the risk of clinical infection. However, there are limited studies focused on risk stratifying and prognostic analysis of subclinical CIED infection.

Methods and Results

Data from 418 consecutive patients undergoing CIED replacement or upgrade between January 2011 and December 2019 were used in the analysis. Among the patients included, 50 (12.0%) were detected as positive by bacterial culture of pocket tissues. The most frequently isolated bacteria were coagulase‐negative staphylococci (76.9%). Compared with the noninfection group, more patients in the subclinical infection group were taking immunosuppressive agents, received electrode replacement, or received CIED upgrade and temporary pacing. Patients in the subclinical infection group had a higher PADIT (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial) score. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis found that use of immunosuppressive agents (odds ratio [OR], 6.95 [95% CI, 1.44–33.51]; P=0.02) and electrode replacement or CIED upgrade (OR, 6.73 [95% CI, 2.23–20.38]; P=0.001) were significantly associated with subclinical CIED infection. Meanwhile, compared with the low‐risk group, patients in the intermediate/high‐risk group had a higher risk of subclinical CIED infection (OR, 3.43 [95% CI, 1.58–7.41]; P=0.002). After a median follow‐up time of 36.5 months, the end points between the subclinical infection group and noninfection group were as follows: composite events (58.0% versus 41.8%, P=0.03), rehospitalization (54.0% versus 32.1%, P=0.002), cardiovascular rehospitalization (32.0% versus 13.9%, P=0.001), CIED infection (2.0% versus 0.5%, P=0.32), all‐cause mortality (28.0% versus 21.5%, P=0.30), and cardiovascular mortality (10.0% versus 7.6%, P=0.57).

Conclusions

Subclinical CIED infection was a common phenomenon. The PADIT score had significant value for stratifying patients at high risk of subclinical CIED infection. Subclinical CIED infection was associated with increased risks of composite events, rehospitalization, and cardiovascular rehospitalization.

Risk Factors for CIED Infection After Secondary Procedures: Insights From the WRAP-IT Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify risk factors for infection after secondary cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures.

BACKGROUND

Risk factors for CIED infection are not well defined and techniques to minimize infection lack supportive evidence. WRAP-IT (World-wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention trial), a large study that assessed the safety and efficacy of an antibacterial envelope for CIED infection reduction, offers insight into procedural details and infection prevention strategies.

METHODS

This analysis included 2,803 control patients from the WRAP-IT trial who received standard preoperative antibiotics but not the envelope (44 patients with major infections through all follow-up). A multivariate least absolute shrinkage and selection operator machine learning model, controlling for patient characteristics and procedural variables, was used for risk factor selection and identification. Risk factors consistently retaining predictive value in the model (appeared >10 times) across 100 iterations of imputed data were deemed significant.

RESULTS

Of the 81 variables screened, 17 were identified as risk factors with 6 being patient/device-related (nonmodifiable) and 11 begin procedure-related (potentially modifiable). Patient/device-related factors included higher number of previous CIED procedures, history of atrial arrhythmia, geography (outside North America and Europe), device type, and lower body mass index. Procedural factors associated with increased risk included longer procedure time, implant location (non-left pectoral subcutaneous), perioperative glycopeptide antibiotic versus nonglycopeptide, anticoagulant, and/or antiplatelet use, and capsulectomy. Factors associated with decreased risk of infection included chlorhexidine skin preparation and antibiotic pocket wash.

CONCLUSIONS

In WRAP-IT patients, we observed that several procedural risk factors correlated with infection risk. These results can help guide infection prevention strategies to minimize infections associated with secondary CIED procedures.

Avoiding implant complications in cardiac implantable electronic devices: what works?

Nearly one in ten patients experience complications in relation to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations. CIED complications have serious implications for the patients and for the healthcare system. In light of the rising rates of new implants and consistent rate of complications, primary prevention remains a major concern. To guide future efforts, we sought to review the evidence base underlying common preventive actions made during a primary CIED implantation.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

A Review of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections for the Practicing Electrophysiologist

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are morbid, costly, and difficult to manage. This review explores the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of CIED infections. Diagnostic accuracy has been improved through increased awareness and improved imaging strategies. Pocket or bloodstream infection with virulent organisms often requires complete system extraction. Emerging prophylactic interventions and novel devices have expanded preventative strategies and options for re-implantation. A clear and nuanced understanding of CIED infection is important to the practicing electrophysiologist.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially lifesaving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased health care costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well-recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. When compared with previous guidelines or consensus statements, the present consensus document gives guidance on the use of novel device alternatives, novel oral anticoagulants, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, as well as definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. The recognition that an international consensus document focused on management of CIED infections is lacking, the dissemination of results from new important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a Novel 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Strategies to Prevent Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection

The association between the risk of mortality and cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections has been well-established in the literature. As CIED implantations have increased in frequency in the past few decades, the incidence of CIED-related infections has also risen. Given the morbidity, mortality, and health-care costs associated with CIED infections, the prevention of device-related infection is a critical goal. Risk factors for developing CIED infections can be categorized as patient-, procedure-, or device-related. Numerous studies have highlighted different strategies for preventing CIED-related infections, which include patient optimization, device selection, and periprocedural preparation and treatment. Nonetheless, as the comorbidity burden of patients undergoing CIED implantation continues to increase, significant challenges in the successful elimination of CIED-related infections remain. This review provides a comprehensive overview of available evidence-based approaches and strategies to reduce the risk of CIED infections.

Single- and dual-site ventricular pacing entirely through the coronary sinus for patients with prior tricuspid valve surgery

PURPOSE

Transvenous right ventricular pacing has traditionally been avoided after surgical tricuspid valve repair or replacement because of possible valvular dysfunction. Epicardial pacing has been used but it requires surgical thoracotomy and has higher lead failure rates when compared to transvenous pacing. We evaluated the lead stability and clinical outcomes in patients with isolated coronary sinus (CS) lead due to relative contraindication to transvenous pacing from prior tricuspid valve (TV) surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined a single-center cohort of 34 patients with TV disease and/or surgery who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation with a left ventricular CS lead as the only ventricular pacing lead (to avoid crossing the TV). The clinical outcome, echocardiographic data, and pacing thresholds were evaluated at follow-up.

RESULTS

We implanted 19 patients with a single-CS lead and 15 patients with dual-CS leads. The average left ventricular ejection fraction was 56 ± 13% prior to lead implantation and remained stable at 2-year follow-up. The tricuspid regurgitation remained mild at follow-up. The average lead pacing threshold was 1.2 ± 0.6 V × ms at implant and 1.1 ± 0.4 V × ms at 2-year follow-up (P = 0.39). For patients with dual-CS leads, the pacing threshold was 1.2 ± 0.7 V × ms at implant and 1.1 ± 0.5 V × ms at 2-year follow-up (P = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ventricular pacing entirely through the CS is an effective and minimally invasive method that provides stable pacing for patients with prior TV surgery in whom transvenous lead placement either is not possible or is relatively contraindicated.

Contemporary benefit-harm profile over two decades in primary prophylactic ICD-therapy

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) was implemented into clinical routine more than 20 years ago. Since then, ICD therapy became standard therapy for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

Aim of the study was to evaluate the benefit-harm profile of contemporary primary prophylactic ICD therapy.

METHODS

A total of 1222 consecutive patients of a prospective single-center ICD-registry were analyzed who underwent primary prophylactic ICD implantation between 2000 and 2017. Patients were divided into two groups according to the implantation year: 2010-2017 (group 1, n = 579) and 2000-2009 (group 2, n = 643).

RESULTS

The rate of estimated appropriate ICD therapy after 8 years was 51% in the 2000s and 42% in the 2010s (P < .001). The complication rate changed slightly from 53% to 47% (P = .005). This decline was mainly driven by the reduction of inappropriate ICD shocks (30% vs 14%, P < .001) whereas the rate of ICD shock lead malfunction and device/ lead infection remained unchanged over time. Nonischemic cardiomyopathy was an independent predictor for ICD complications without benefit of ICD therapy (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.77).

CONCLUSION

The ICD therapy rate for ventricular arrhythmias in patients with primary prophylactic ICD implantation is decreasing over the last two decades. Complication rate remains high due to an unchanged rate of ICD shock malfunctions and device infections. Nonischemic cardiomyopathy is an independent predictor for ICD complications without benefit of ICD therapy in primary prophylactic ICD-therapy.

The never-ending story of CIED infection prevention: Shall we WRAP-IT and go?

CIED infection is perceived as substantial, ranging from 1% to 4% in literature depending on different studies and on the population profile, and can appear either as surgical site or endovascular infection or both. Several factors have been found to be associated to CIED infection, that can be summarized as patient-related (clinical profile, associated comorbidities, ongoing treatment as anticoagulants and immunosuppressants), Procedure-related (complexity of CIED surgery, type of surgery, previous pocket exploration), and center-/operator-related (center/operator volume). Thus, it is difficult to disentangle the extent of benefit that any intervention may offer to decrease this threatened complication, owing to its multifaceted complexity. The recently completed PADIT and WRAP-IT trials have significantly improved our knowledge in this field (nearly 20 000 patients enrolled), reporting an infection rate of 1% to 1.2% in control-arm patients and a 20% to 67% infection decrease when incremental antibiotic prophylaxis is added on top of optimized preventative strategies. Observational registries highlighted that participation in a prospective survey of CIED infection dramatically decrease infection rate by optimization of antisepsis protocols and operator awareness, that explains the low event rate observed in PADIT and WRAP-IT. While this consideration prompts each center to engage into a proactive infection prevention program, it makes a point in favor of antibiotic prophylaxis delivered locally in 7 days or more, as enabled by TYRX in the WRAP-IT trial. However, care sustainability (the number needed to treat in the most favorable WRAP-IT scenario is 100) suggests further analysis to understand the settings (patient- or procedure-related) most likely to benefit by such an enhanced prevention strategy.

Effect of fibrotic capsule debridement during generator replacement on cardiac implantable electronic device infection risk

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) replacement is increasingly common. It has been proposed that capsule removal at the time of CIED replacement may reduce infection rates. In this study, we aimed to assess how pocket capsule removal impacted infection rates in patients undergoing CIED replacement.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent CIED replacement from 2006 to 2016 at a single centre. We retrieved patient data, procedure details, and clinical outcomes. To evaluate the relationship between capsule removal and CIED infection, we used the Cox proportional hazard model, with adjustment for multiple variables.

RESULTS

During the study period, 773 patients underwent device replacement. Of these patients, 194 (25%) underwent capsule debridement during the replacement procedure. The mean patient age was 75 ± 15 years, and 281 (36.3%) were females. The replaced CIEDs included DDD pacemakers (32%), VDD pacemakers (15%), VVI/AAI pacemakers (13%), defibrillators (22%), and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices (CRT-D/P) (17%). During an average follow-up of 3.6 years, 42 (5%) patients experienced a CIED infection. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients who underwent capsule removal had a significantly lower risk of CIED infection, with a hazard ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.83; P = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Capsule debridement during CIED replacement was associated with a significant reduction of CIED infection risk. There is a need for randomized controlled studies to confirm these findings.

Real-life outcome of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization defibrillator replacement/upgrade in a contemporary population: observations from the multicentre DECODE registry

Aims

The benefit of prolonged implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) therapy following device replacement is hindered by clinical and procedure-related adverse events (AEs). Adverse events rate is highest in more complex devices and at upgrades, as per the REPLACE registry experience, but is changing owing to the improvement in device technology and medical care. We aimed at understanding the extent and type of AEs in a contemporary Italian population.

Methods and results

Detect long-term complications after ICD replacement (DECODE) was a prospective, single-arm, multicentre cohort study aimed at estimating medium- to long-term AEs in a large population of patients undergoing ICD/cardiac resynchronization defibrillator replacement/upgrade from 2013 to 2015. We prospectively analysed all clinical and device-related AEs at 12-month follow-up (FU) of 983 consecutive patients (median age 71 years, 76% male, 55% ischaemic, 47% CRT-D) followed for 353 ± 49 days. Seven percent of the patients died (60.6% for cardiovascular reasons), whereas 104 AEs occurred; 43 (4.4%) patients needed at least one surgical action to treat the AE. Adverse events rates were 3.3/100 years lead-related, 3.4/100 years bleedings, and 1.6/100 years infective. The primary endpoint was predicted by hospitalization in the month prior to the procedure [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.23, 1.16–4.29; 0.0169] and by upgrade (HR = 1.75, 1.02–2.99, 0.0441). One hundred and twelve (11.4%) patients met the combined endpoint of death from any cause, cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-related infection, and surgical action/hospitalization required to treat the AE. Hospitalization within 30 days prior to the procedure (HR = 2.07, 1.13–3.81; 0.0199), anticoagulation (HR = 1.97, 1.26–3.07; 0.003), and ischaemic cardiomyopathy (HR = 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.06–2.63; P = 0.0276) were associated with the combined endpoint during FU.

Conclusions

Adverse events following CIED replacement/upgrade are lower than previously reported, possibly owing to improved patients care. Hospitalization in the month prior to the procedure, upgrade, and clinical profile (anticoagulation, ischaemic cardiomyopathy) hint to increased risk, suggesting an individualized planning of the procedure to minimize overall AEs.

Clinical trial registration

URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ Identifier: NCT02076789.

Is ventricular sensing always right, when it is left?

BACKGROUND

Ventricular sensing in transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) occurs conventionally from the right ventricular (RV) channel, though it evolved from epicardial sensing both in pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).

HYPOTHESIS

The objective of this study was to observe the reliability of left ventricular (LV) sensing by transvenous leads placed in coronary veins.

METHODS

LV leads were used for sensing and arrhythmia detection in clinical situations where placement of an RV lead across the tricuspid valve was either not preferred or not feasible, or RV signal was unsuitable for arrhythmia detection, or in the event of sensing failure of an RV lead under advisory in cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRTD) recipients.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients had an IS-1 LV lead connected to the RV port of CIEDs (17 pacemakers, 5 cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker [CRTP], 2 ICDs, and 13 CRTDs). Along a median 41 (25-67) months follow-up, lead performance remained stable; there were neither undersensing nor oversensing of non-cardiac signals. VT/VF were correctly detected and terminated by ATP and shocks (one and three patients, respectively); no inappropriate arrhythmia detection. Device reprogramming occurred in four CRTD recipients because of transient counting the QRS (short intervals) when paced in LV-only, and in two with T-wave oversensing.

CONCLUSIONS

Ventricular sensing by an LV lead is feasible in transvenous devices. Sensing programmability is an unmet need: to fix RV lead sensing issues in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients at no risk of infection (no pocket opening); to avoid interaction with the tricuspid valve; to avoid lead redundancy in the vasculature. Moreover, it will be mandatory owing to the loss of lead interchangeability due to the adoption of DF-4 and quadripolar leads.

Clinical presentation of CIED infection following initial implant versus reoperation for generator change or lead addition

Objective

To explore differences in clinical manifestations and outcomes in those patients who develop infection after undergoing initial implantation versus reoperation.

Methods

We compared cases of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection based on initial implantation versus reoperation from 11 centres.

Results

There were 432 patients with CIED infection, 178 occurring after initial device placement and 254 after repeat reoperation. No differences were seen in age, sex or device type. Those with infection after initial implant had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Score (median 3 (IQR 2–6) vs 2 (IQR 1–4), p<0.001), shorter time since last procedure (median 8.9 months (IQR 0.9–33.3) vs 19.5 months (IQR 1.1–62.9), p<0.0001) and fewer leads (2.0±0.6vs 2.5±0.9, p<0.001). Pocket infections were more likely to occur after a reoperation (70.1%vs48.9%, p<0.001) and coagulase negative staphylococci (CoNS) was the most frequently isolated organism in this group (p=0.029). In contrast, initial implant infections were more likely to present with higher white cell count (10.5±5.1 g/dL vs 9.5±5.4 g/dL, p=0.025), metastatic foci of infection (16.9%vs8.7%, p=0.016) and sepsis (30.9%vs19.3%, p=0.006). There were no differences in in-hospital (7.9%vs5.2%, p=0.31) or 6-month mortality (21.9%vs14.0%, p=0.056).

Conclusions

CIED infections after initial device implant occur earlier, more aggressively, and often due to Staphylococcus aureus. In contrast, CIED infections after reoperation occur later, are due to CoNS, and have more indolent manifestations with primary localisation to the pocket.

The Composition and Structure of Biofilms Developed by Propionibacterium acnes Isolated from Cardiac Pacemaker Devices

The present study aimed to understand the biofilm formation mechanism of Propionibacterium acnes by analyzing the components and structure of the biofilms. P. acnes strains were isolated from the surface of explanted cardiac pacemaker devices that exhibited no clinical signs of infection. Culture tests using a simple stamp culture method (pressing pacemakers against the surface of agar plates) revealed frequent P. acnes colonization on the surface of cardiac pacemaker devices. P. acnes was isolated from 7/31 devices, and the isolates were categorized by multilocus sequence typing into five different sequence types (STs): ST4 (JK18.2), ST53 (JK17.1), ST69 (JK12.2 and JK13.1), ST124 (JK5.3), ST125 (JK6.2), and unknown ST (JK19.3). An in vitro biofilm formation assay using microtiter plates demonstrated that 5/7 isolates formed biofilms. Inhibitory effects of DNase I and proteinase K on biofilm formation varied among isolates. In contrast, dispersin B showed no inhibitory activity against all isolates. Three-dimensional live/dead imaging of P. acnes biofilms with different biochemical properties using confocal laser microscopy demonstrated different distributions and proportions of living and dead cells. Additionally, it was suggested that extracellular DNA (eDNA) plays a role in the formation of biofilms containing living cells. Ultrastructural analysis of P. acnes biofilms using a transmission electron microscope and atmospheric scanning electron microscope revealed leakage of cytoplasmic components along with cell lysis and fibrous structures of eDNA connecting cells. In conclusion, the biochemical properties and structures of the biofilms differed among P. acnes isolates. These findings may provide clues for establishing countermeasures against biofilm-associated infection by P. acnes.

Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are complex medical problems that are increasingly encountered. They are associated with significant morbidity and mortality with tremendous economic cost. The current review will emphasize the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of this clinical entity using the relatively limited evidence that is currently available. Because there is a paucity of high quality evidence regarding prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections, this review will attempt to summarize the best evidence as well as to suggest, when possible, paradigms for care. The topic of CIED infections is a dynamic one as the scope of CIED continues to widen. Furthermore, there are promising advancements in CIED technology which may help reduce its occurrence the future. Unfortunately, significant gaps in knowledge remain, and definitive recommendations regarding CIED infections and future studies should be directed at improving our ability to prevent infections.

Prevention of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Update and Evaluation of the Potential Role for Capsulectomy or the Antibiotic Pouch

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections can have devastating implications for patient morbidity and mortality. Over the past decade, the infection rate has risen out of proportion to implant rates, and has prompted the development of innovative solutions designed to reduce infections. The first section of this review provides a summary of the contemporary knowledge regarding the incidence, prevalence, microbiology, and risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic device infections. The second section addresses prevention with an emphasis on the potential role of novel procedural approaches, such as capsulectomy and the antibacterial envelope, in reducing CIED infection.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection in Patients at Risk

The incidence of infection following implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is increasing at a faster rate than that of device implantation. Patients with a CIED infection usually require hospitalisation and complete device and lead removal. A significant proportion die from their infection. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is associated with rare but serious complications including major vascular injury or cardiac perforation. Operator experience and advances in lead extraction methods, including laser technology and rotational sheaths, have resulted in procedures having a low risk of complication and mortality. Strategies for preventing CIED infections include intravenous antibiotics and aseptic surgical techniques. An additional method to reduce CIED infection may be the use of antibacterial TYRX™ envelope. Data from non-randomised cohort studies have indicated that antibacterial envelope use can reduce the incidence of CIED infection by more than 80 % in high-risk patients and a randomised clinical trial is ongoing.

Cardiac device infection: Review based in the experience of a single center

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infections has increased significantly over the years and they are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The epidemiology in the Central region of Portugal is not known.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

To characterize cardiac implantable electronic device infections through a retrospective study of 3158 patients admitted to our center between January 2008 and September 2014 and to review the subject in the light of the current state of the art.

RESULTS

The infection rate was 1.48% (pacemakers 1.21%, cardiac defibrillator/resynchronization devices 5.40%). The study population consisted of 47 patients with a mean age of 65±19 years, predominantly male (72.3%). Infections were mainly of pacemakers, the main device implanted in our population (n=2954), and most occurred late after first implantation. Clinically, most patients presented with fever and local inflammation. Blood cultures identified mainly Gram-positive microorganisms. Empiric antibiotic therapy with vancomycin was instituted in all patients, associated with gentamicin in 57%. The device was extracted in the majority of cases (72%). During follow-up (32±22 months) eight patients died (17%), seven of cardiovascular cause (15%), and seven were readmitted with device infection (15%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our rate of infection was low, similar to other published series, with a higher rate in cardiac defibrillator/resynchronization devices. After standard treatment with antibiotic therapy and device extraction, the prognosis was good.

Adverse events of gastric electrical stimulators recorded in the Manufacturer and User Device Experience (MAUDE) Registry

The role of gastric electrical stimulation for patients with refractory symptoms of gastroparesis remains controversial. Open label studies suggest benefit while randomized controlled trials did not demonstrate differences between active and sham intervention. Using a voluntary reporting system of the Federal Drug Administration, we examined the type and frequency of adverse events.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic search of the Manufacturer and User Device Experience (MAUDE) databank using the keyword 'Enterra' for the time between January of 2001 and October of 2015. We abstracted information about the year of stimulator implantation, the year and type of adverse effect, the resulting intervention and outcome if available.

RESULTS

A total of 1587 entries described adverse effects related the GES. Only 36 of the reports listed perioperative complications. The vast majority described problems that could be classified as patient concerns, local complications, or system failure. The most common problem related lack or loss of efficacy, followed by pain or complications affecting the pocket site. A subset of 801 reports provided information about the time between system implant and registration of concerns, which gradually declined over time. More than one third (35.7%) of the reported adverse events prompted surgical correction.

CONCLUSION

The number of voluntarily reported adverse events and the high likelihood of repeated surgical interventions clearly demonstrate the potential downside of gastric electrical stimulation. Physicians considering this intervention will need to carefully weigh these risks and include this information when counseling or consenting patients.

Microbial diagnosis of infection and colonization of cardiac implantable electronic devices by use of sonication

OBJECTIVES

The clinical utility of sonication as an adjunctive diagnostic tool for the microbial diagnosis of cardiac implantable device-associated infections (CIDAIs) was investigated.

METHODS

The implants of 83 subjects were investigated, 15 with a CIDAI and 68 without a clinical infection. Clinical data were analyzed prospectively and sonication fluid cultures (83 patients, 100%) and traditional cultures (31 patients, 37.4%) were performed

RESULTS

Generator pocket infection and device-related endocarditis were found in 13 (86.7%) and four (26.7%) subjects, respectively. The mean numbers of previous technical complications and infections were higher in the infected patients compared to the non-infected patients (8 vs. 1, p<0.001; 2 vs. 0, p<0.031, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity for detecting CIDAI was 73.3% (11/15) and 48.5% (33/68) for sonication fluid culture, and 26.7% (4/15) and 100% (16/16) for traditional culture (p<0.001), respectively. A higher number of organisms were identified by sonication fluid than by tissue culture (58 vs. 4 specimens; p<0.001). The most frequent organisms cultured were Gram-positive cocci (66.1%), mainly coagulase-negative staphylococci (35.5%). Thirty-five (51.5%) non-infected subjects were considered colonized due to the positive identification of organisms exclusively through sonication fluid culture.

CONCLUSIONS

Sonication fluid culture from the removed cardiac implants has the potential to improve the microbiological diagnosis of CIDAIs.

Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices Infections in High-Risk Patients

The incidence of infection following implantation of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is increasing, as is the number of pulse generator replacements and upgrades. The rate of infections is rising faster than the rate of device implantation, mainly due to the increasing age and number of comorbidities of patients receiving the devices. Patients with a CIED infection usually require hospitalisation, multiple consultations, prolonged intravenous antibiotics and, in the majority of cases, CIED explantation and replacement. A significant proportion die of their infection. CIED infection therefore represents a substantial health and economic burden, and management of infections is critical. Numerous risk factors have been identified including host, procedure and device-related factors. Established strategies for preventing CIED infections include intravenous antibiotics and aseptic techniques. The TYRX™ Absorbable Antibacterial Envelope offers potential as an effective method to reduce CIED infections. Several studies have found a statistically significant association between antibacterial envelope use and reduced incidence of CIED infection in high-risk patients. A prospective, randomised trial to further evaluate this potentially important strategy for CIED infection prophylaxis is underway.

Usefulness of sonication of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices to enhance microbial detection

The cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection rate is rising disproportionately to the rate of device implantation. Identification of microorganisms that cause CIED infections is not always achieved using present laboratory techniques. We conducted a prospective study to determine whether device vortexing-sonication followed by culture of the resulting sonicate fluid would enhance microbial detection compared with traditional swab or pocket tissue cultures. Forty-two subjects with noninfected and 35 with infected CIEDs were prospectively enrolled over 12 months. One swab each from the device pocket and device surface, pocket tissue, and the CIED were collected from each patient. Swabs and tissues were cultured using routine methods. The CIED was processed in Ringer's solution using vortexing-sonication and the resultant fluid semiquantitatively cultured. Tissue and swab growth was considered significant when colonies grew on ≥2 quadrants of the culture plate and device was considered significant when ≥20 colonies were isolated from 10 ml of sonicate fluid. In noninfected group, 5% of sonicate fluids yielded significant bacterial growth, compared with 5% of tissue cultures (p = 1.00) and 2% of both pocket and device swab cultures (p = 0.317 each). In infected group, significant bacterial growth was observed in 54% of sonicate fluids, significantly greater than the sensitivities of pocket swab (20%, p = 0.001), device swab (9%, p <0.001), or tissue (9%, p <0.001) culture. In conclusion, vortexing-sonication of CIEDs with semiquantitative culture of the resultant sonicate fluid results in a significant increase in the sensitivity of culture results, compared with swab or tissue cultures.

Identification of bacteriology and risk factor analysis of asymptomatic bacterial colonization in pacemaker replacement patients

Background

Recent researches revealed that asymptomatic bacterial colonization on PMs might be ubiquitous and increase the risk of clinical PM infection. Early diagnosis of patients with asymptomatic bacterial colonization could provide opportunity for targeted preventive measures.

Objective

The present study explores the incidence of bacterial colonization of generator pockets in pacemaker replacement patients without signs of infection, and to analyze risk factors for asymptomatic bacterial colonization.

Methods

From June 2011 to December 2013, 118 patients underwent pacemaker replacement or upgrade. Identification of bacteria was carried out by bacterial culture and 16S rRNA sequencing. Clinical risk characteristics were analyzed.

Results

The total bacterial positive rate was 37.3% (44 cases), and the coagulase-negative Staphylococcus aureus detection rate was the highest. Twenty two (18.6%) patients had positive bacterial culture results, of which 50% had coagulase-negative staphylococcus. The bacterial DNA detection rate was 36.4 % (43 cases). Positive bacterial DNA results from pocket tissues and the surface of the devices were 22.0% and 29.7%, respectively. During follow-up (median, 27.0 months), three patients (6.8%, 3/44) became symptomatic with the same genus of microorganism, S. aureus (n=2) and S. epidermidis (n=1). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that history of bacterial infection, use of antibiotics, application of antiplatelet drugs, replacement frequency were independent risk factors for asymptomatic bacterial colonization.

Conclusion

There was a high incidence of asymptomatic bacterial colonization in pacemaker patients with independent risk factors. Bacterial culture combined genetic testing could improve the detection rate.

Genetic identification and risk factor analysis of asymptomatic bacterial colonization on cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

Asymptomatic bacterial colonization of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is widespread and increases the risk of clinical CIED infection. The aim of the study was to evaluate the incidence of bacterial colonization of generator pockets in patients without signs of infection and to analyze the relationship with clinical infection and risk factors. From June 2011 to December 2012, 78 patients underwent CIED replacement or upgrade. Exclusion criteria included a clinical diagnosis of CIED infection, bacteremia, or infective endocarditis. All patients were examined for evidence of bacterial 16S rDNA on the device and in the surrounding tissues. Infection cases were recorded during follow-up. The bacterial-positive rate was 38.5% (30 cases); the coagulase-negative Staphylococcus detection rate was the highest (9 cases, 11.5%). Positive bacterial DNA results were obtained from pocket tissue in 23.1% of patients (18 cases), and bacterial DNA was detected on the device in 29.5% of patients (23 cases). During follow-up (median 24.6 months), two patients (6.7%, 2/30) became symptomatic with the same species of microorganism, S. aureus and S. epidermidis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis found that the history of bacterial infection, use of antibiotics, application of antiplatelet drugs, replacement frequency, and renal insufficiency were independent risk factors for asymptomatic bacterial colonization.

Guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention and management of implantable cardiac electronic device infection. Report of a joint Working Party project on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC, host organization), British Heart Rhythm Society (BHRS), British Cardiovascular Society (BCS), British Heart Valve Society (BHVS) and British Society for Echocardiography (BSE)

Infections related to implantable cardiac electronic devices (ICEDs), including pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, are increasing in incidence in the USA and are likely to increase in the UK, because more devices are being implanted. These devices have both intravascular and extravascular components and infection can involve the generator, device leads and native cardiac structures or various combinations. ICED infections can be life-threatening, particularly when associated with endocardial infection, and all-cause mortality of up to 35% has been reported. Like infective endocarditis, ICED infections can be difficult to diagnose and manage. This guideline aims to (i) improve the quality of care provided to patients with ICEDs, (ii) provide an educational resource for all relevant healthcare professionals, (iii) encourage a multidisciplinary approach to ICED infection management, (iv) promote a standardized approach to the diagnosis, management, surveillance and prevention of ICED infection through pragmatic evidence-rated recommendations, and (v) advise on future research projects/audit. The guideline is intended to assist in the clinical care of patients with suspected or confirmed ICED infection in the UK, to inform local infection prevention and treatment policies and guidelines and to be used in the development of educational and training material by the relevant professional societies. The questions covered by the guideline are presented at the beginning of each section.

Sonication of explanted cardiac implants improves microbial detection in cardiac device infections

The sonication technique has been shown to be a promising tool for microbiological diagnosis of device-related infections. We evaluated the usefulness of the sonication method for pathogen detection in 80 explanted cardiac components collected from 40 patients, and the results were compared with those of conventional cultures. Forty subjects undergoing cardiac device removal were studied: 20 had cardiac device infection, and 20 subjects underwent elective generator replacement or revision in the absence of infection. Sonication of explanted devices was more sensitive than traditional culture for microbial detection (67% and 50%, respectively; P = 0.0005). The bacterial count detected in sonication fluid culture was significantly higher than that detected in traditional culture in both infected (P = 0.019) and uninfected (P = 0.029) devices. In the infected patients, sonication fluid culture yielded a significantly higher rate of pathogen detection in explanted electrodes than traditional culture (65% versus 45%; P = 0.02), while no differences were found in the generators. Ten strains were detected only through sonication fluid culture: 6 Staphylococcus epidermidis strains, 1 Staphylococcus hominis strain, 2 Corynebacterium striatum strains, and 1 Brevundimonas sp. Neither the type nor the duration of antimicrobial therapy before device removal had an effect on the diagnostic performance of sonication fluid culture (P = 0.75 and P = 0.56, respectively). In the patients without infection, sonication fluid culture was positive in 8 cases (40%), whereas conventional culture was positive in only 4 (20%). In summary, the sonication technique improves the microbiological diagnosis of explanted cardiac devices.