Prevention and Risk Assessment of Cardiac Device Infections in Clinical Practice

The implantation of cardiac electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers and defibrillators, has become increasingly prevalent in recent years and has been accompanied by a significant rise in cardiac device infections (CDIs), which pose a substantial clinical and economic burden. CDIs are associated with hospitalizations and prolonged antibiotic therapy and often necessitate device removal, leading to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs worldwide. Approximately 1-2% of CIED implants are associated with infections, making this a critical issue to address. In this contemporary review, we discuss the burden of CDIs with their risk factors, healthcare costs, prevention strategies, and clinical management.

Update on Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infections and Their Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association: Endorsed by the International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases

The American Heart Association sponsored the first iteration of a scientific statement that addressed all aspects of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection in 2010. Major advances in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of these infections have occurred since then, necessitating a scientific statement update. An 11-member writing group was identified and included recognized experts in cardiology and infectious diseases, with a career focus on cardiovascular infections. The group initially met in October 2022 to develop a scientific statement that was drafted with front-line clinicians in mind and focused on providing updated clinical information to enhance outcomes of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection. The current scientific statement highlights recent advances in prevention, diagnosis, and management, and how they may be incorporated in the complex care of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection.

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.

[Surgical basics of cardiac implantable electronic device implantation from skin incision through closure]

Implantation of pacemakers is generally considered a "minor intervention". Younger colleagues obtain their skills from experienced ones; ideally not just over the course of one or two interventions under surveillance but until a certain level of confidence is achieved. In Germany, certification is still optional. The German Cardiology Society (DSC, "Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie") provides expertise courses to obtain basic knowledge of pacemaker therapy; the GCS/GSCVS has been offering certification modules since 2013 to acquire fundamental knowledge from experts and basic technical skills by simulator training. The present article illustrates the major aspects of pacemaker implantation procedures and some avoidable pitfalls.

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.

Real-world effectiveness of infection prevention interventions for reducing procedure-related cardiac device infections: Insights from the veterans affairs clinical assessment reporting and tracking program

OBJECTIVE

To measure the association between receipt of specific infection prevention interventions and procedure-related cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort with manually reviewed infection status.

SETTING

Setting: National, multicenter Veterans Health Administration (VA) cohort.

PARTICIPANTS

Sampling of procedures entered into the VA Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking-Electrophysiology (CART-EP) database from fiscal years 2008 through 2015.

METHODS

A sample of procedures entered into the CART-EP database underwent manual review for occurrence of CIED infection and other clinical/procedural variables. The primary outcome was 6-month incidence of CIED infection. Measures of association were calculated using multivariable generalized estimating equations logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 101 procedure-related CIED infections among 2,098 procedures (4.8% of reviewed sample). Factors associated with increased odds of infections included (1) wound complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 8.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.16-24.20), (2) revisions including generator changes (aOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.59-3.63), (3) an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) >1.5 (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.12-2.18), and (4) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus colonization (aOR, 9.56; 95% CI, 1.55-27.77). Clinically effective prevention interventions included preprocedural skin cleaning with chlorhexidine versus other topical agents (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76) and receipt of β-lactam antimicrobial prophylaxis versus vancomycin (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.96). The use of mesh pockets and continuation of antimicrobial prophylaxis after skin closure were not associated with reduced infection risk.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings regarding the real-world clinical effectiveness of different prevention strategies can be applied to the development of evidence-based protocols and infection prevention guidelines specific to the electrophysiology laboratory.

Management of Device Infections

The rate of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection has increased disproportionately to the rate of implantation. Expanded indications for CIED implantation combined with a sicker patient population contribute to this increased rate. Device-related infections are most commonly due to perioperative contamination, and infection risk increases in conjunction with procedural complexity. Early pocket re-exploration and upgrade procedures confer a higher infectious risk. Confirmed CIED infection requires prompt removal of the CIED system combined with antimicrobial therapy. Understanding the risks of CIED infection and using preventive measures are critical. It is hoped that emerging technologies will mitigate CIED infection rates.

Effect of pocket irrigation with antimicrobial on prevention of pacemaker pocket infection: a meta-analysis

Background

The presence of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) pocket infection is difficult to treat, causing serious clinical outcomes, but little is known for prevention. Results from some studies suggested that pocket irrigation could reduce infection while others showed conflicting results. We pooled the effects of pocket irrigations on the prevention of pocket infection by meta-analysis methods.

Method

Relevant studies published before June, 2017 were retrieved mainly by the computer-based search of PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, Chinese BioMedical, Global Health and BIOSIS Previews databases. Estimations of relative ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were pooled. Subgroup analyses according to potential key factors affecting the effects were conducted, which was confirmed by meta-regression. Sensitivity analysis and test for publication bias were also performed.

Results

We identified 10 studies providing data of 5467 patients receiving CIEDs implantations. Pooled infection rates were 1.48 and 3.49% respectively for medication and saline irrigation groups. Meta-analysis showed that medication irrigation conferred protection to pocket infection (RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.31-0.63). Subgroup analysis showed that antibiotics, rather than non-antibiotics (antiseptics) exerting the protection. The first and second lines antibiotics against staphylococcus aureus, which is the main pathogen for pocket infection, were both effective (RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.75 and RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20-0.58 respectively for first line and second line therapies). Meta-regression revealed that region and class of irrigation medication completely explained the variance among studies and implied that effects of region were masked by medication types. Sensitivity analysis did not showed any significant change of the result and publication bias were not statistical significance.

Conclusion

Pocket irrigation with antibiotics were effective for reducing pocket infection and should be encouraged in CIEDs implantation.

A Roadmap for Reducing Cardiac Device Infections: a Review of Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, and Actionable Risk Factors to Guide the Development of an Infection Prevention Program for the Electrophysiology Laboratory

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are highly morbid, common, and costly, and rates are increasing (Sohail et al. Arch Intern Med 171(20):1821-8 2011; Voigt et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 48(3):590-1 2006). Factors that contribute to the development of CIED infections include patient factors (comorbid conditions, self-care, microbiome), procedural details (repeat procedure, contamination during procedure, appropriate pre-procedural prep, and antimicrobial use), environmental and organizational factors (patient safety culture, facility barriers, such as lack of space to store essential supplies, quality of environmental cleaning), and microbial factors (type of organism, virulence of organism). Each of these can be specifically targeted with infection prevention interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Basic prevention practices, such as administration of systemic antimicrobials prior to incision and delaying the procedure in the setting of fever or elevated INR, are helpful for day-to-day prevention of cardiac device infections. Small single-center studies provide proof-of-concept that bundled prevention interventions can reduce infections, particularly in outbreak settings. However, data regarding which prevention strategies are the most important is limited as are data regarding the optimal prevention program for day-to-day prevention (Borer et al. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 25(6):492-7 2004; Ahsan et al. Europace 16(10):1482-9 2014). Evolution of infection prevention programs to include ambulatory and procedural areas is crucial as healthcare delivery is increasingly provided outside of hospitals and operating rooms. The focus on traditional operating rooms and inpatient care leaves the vast majority of healthcare delivery-including cardiac device implantations in the electrophysiology laboratory-uncovered.

Prevention of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Single Operator Technique with Use of Povidone-Iodine, Double Gloving, Meticulous Aseptic/Antiseptic Measures and Antibiotic Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is complicated by infection still at a worrisome rate of 2-5%. Since early on during device implantation procedures, we have adopted an infection-preventive technique which has hitherto resulted in effective prevention of infections. Herein we present our results of applying this technique by a single operator in a prospective series of 762 consecutive patients undergoing device implantation.

METHODS

A meticulous search for and treatment of active, occult, or smoldering infection was undertaken preoperatively. An aseptic/antiseptic technique was used for implantation of each device. Skin preparation is thorough with initial cleansing performed with alcohol followed by povidone-iodine 10% solution, which is also used in the wound and inside the pocket. In addition, we routinely use double gloving, and IV antibiotic prophylaxis 1 hour before and for 48 hours afterwards followed by oral antibiotic for 2-3 days after discharge. The skin is closed with absorbable sutures. The study includes 382 patients having a new pacemaker (n = 333) or battery change, system upgrade or lead revision (n = 49), and 380 patients having a new implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (n = 296) or device replacement/upgrade/lead revision (n = 84).

RESULTS

The pacemaker group, aged 70.2 ± 16.5 years, includes 18% VVI, 49% DDD, 29% VDD, and 4% cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. The ICD group, aged 61.3 ± 13.0 years, with a mean ejection fraction of 36 ± 13%, includes 325 ICD and 55 CRT implants. Over 26.6 ± 33.4 months for the pacemaker group and 36.6 ± 38.3 months for the ICD group, infection occurred in one patient in each group (0.26%) having a device replacement.

CONCLUSION

A consistent and strict approach of aseptic/antiseptic technique with the use of double gloving and povidone-iodine solution within the pocket plus a 4-day regimen of antibiotic prophylaxis minimizes infections in CIED implants.