Postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of cardiac implantable electronic device infection

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.

A Survey of Antibiotic Use During Insertion of Cardiovascular Implantable Devices Among United States Implanters

Antibiotic use for cardiovascular implantable devices (CIED) prophylaxis is well-accepted despite a paucity of data. Pre-procedural prophylaxis lowers the rate of CIED infections; however, data is lacking for intra- or post-procedural antibiotic use. Antibiotic-eluting envelopes (ENVELOPE) [TYRX^®TM] have been shown to reduce post-procedural infections. Understanding implanter practices may provide insight as to the need for antibiotic stewardship. The purpose of this survey was to assess the practices of implanters nationally. A survey was completed by 150 implanters across the US. Participants were board certificated, implanters of CIEDs, with varying experience (1-25 years), in various hospital settings. Of the respondents, 97% reported routine use of systemic antibiotics pre-operatively. About two-thirds of implanters continue systemic antibiotics post-operatively, with half continuing antibiotics for >24 h; 83% of implanters add antibiotic to saline for the purpose of irrigating the wound; 55% routinely use ENVELOPE on approximately 38% of patients. Common reasons cited for ENVELOPE use were infection concerns, significant risk factors, prior device infection, and immunosuppressed status. Two-thirds of respondents use systemic antibiotics during generator changes, with >50% continuing antibiotics for >24 h. This study suggests wide variations in practice among implanters. Additional attention to existing guidelines and evidence regarding appropriate use of ENVELOPE is still needed.

Prevention and Management of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is an increasingly common complication of device therapy. CIED infection confers significant patient morbidity and health care expenditure, hence it is essential that clinicians recognise the contemporary strategies for predicting, reducing and treating these events. Recent technological advances-in particular, the development of antimicrobial envelopes, leadless devices and validated risk scores-present decision-makers with novel strategies for managing this expanding patient population. This review summarises the key issues facing CIED patients and their physicians, and explores the supporting evidence for the latest therapeutic developments in this field.

The utility of postoperative systemic antibiotic prophylaxis following cardiovascular implantable electronic device implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is insufficient evidence regarding postoperative systemic antibiotic prophylaxis use for more than 24 hours following cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation and its impact on infection prevention. However, this strategy remains a common practice in many institutions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including studies that compared the outcomes of patients: 1) who received preoperative plus 24 hours or more of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (intervention group); and 2) who received either preoperative only or preoperative plus less than 24 hours of antibiotic prophylaxis (control group). Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I and ROB-2 tools. Risk ratio (RR) was pooled using random-effect meta-analyses with inverse variance method.

RESULTS

Eight studies that included two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies with a total of 26,187 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, there were no differences in outcomes between the two groups, which included rates of CIED infection (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42, 1.42), mortality (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.69, 2.06), pocket hematoma (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.44, 3.00) or reintervention (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.22, 3.46). Of note, the results were primarily impacted by the larger RCT.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no benefit of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for more than 24 hours following CIED implantation in the current systematic review and meta-analysis. This supports the practice advocated by current guidelines which foster antibiotic stewardship and may result in reductions of adverse drug events, selection for antibiotic resistance, and financial costs of prolonged postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Adherence to antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines in cardiac implantable electronic device procedures in two Australian teaching hospitals

Objective This study investigated antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) guideline adherence and the cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection rate in two major Australian public teaching hospitals. Methods In a retrospective observational study, the medical records of patients who underwent CIED procedures between January and December 2017 were reviewed (Hospital A, n = 400 procedures; Hospital B, n = 198 procedures). Adherence to AP guidelines was assessed regarding drug, dose, timing, route and frequency. Infection was identified using follow-up documentation. Results AP was administered in 582 of 598 procedures (97.3%). Full guideline adherence was observed in 33.9% of procedures (203/598) and differed significantly between Hospitals A and B (47.3% vs 7.1%, respectively; P < 0.001). Common reasons for non-adherence were the timing of administration (42.3% vs 60.6% non-adherent in Hospitals A and B, respectively; P < 0.001) and repeat dosing (19.3% vs 78.8% non-adherent in Hospitals A and B, respectively; P < 0.001). Twenty infections were identified over 626.6 patient-years of follow-up (mean (±s.d.) follow-up 1.0 ± 0.3 years). The infection rate was 3.19 per 100 patient-years (P = 0.99 between hospitals). Two devices were removed due to infection; no patients died from CIED infection. Conclusions Although the rate of serious CIED infection was low, there was evidence of highly variable and suboptimal antibiotic use, and potential overuse of AP. What is known about the topic? Previous Australian studies have revealed high rates of inappropriate surgical AP. CIED infections are potentially life threatening, but can be avoided through effective use of AP. However, prolonged durations of AP in this setting may also result in complications, including Clostridioides difficile infection. What does this paper add? This study, the first to our knowledge to focus specifically on adherence to Australian guidelines for AP in CIED procedures, highlighted several common issues between AP in this setting and surgical and procedural AP more broadly. 'Early' and 'late' dose administration and extended post-procedural AP were common. Only 34% of prescriptions fully adhered to the guidelines; practices varied significantly between the two hospitals. What are the implications for practitioners? There is a clear need for institution-specific antimicrobial stewardship strategies to optimise AP in CIED procedures, aligned with the Antimicrobial Stewardship Clinical Care Standard. Patients are being placed at potentially avoidable risk of both complications of extended durations of AP and CIED infection, although the rate of serious CIED infection was low. A standardised approach to surveillance of CIED infections and prospective multisite audits of AP in CIED procedures using a validated tool, such as the Surgical National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey, are recommended to better inform evidence-based practice. Potential strategies to optimise guideline adherence include prescribing support in patients with immediate penicillin hypersensitivity or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonisation, optimising the in-patient location of drug administration to promote timely dosing, limiting inappropriate post-procedural prophylaxis and routine S. aureus screening and decolonisation.

Epidemiology of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: incidence and risk factors

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a potentially devastating complication of CIED procedures, causing significant morbidity and mortality for patients. Of all CIED complications, infection has the greatest impact on mortality, requirement for re-intervention and additional hospital treatment days. Based on large prospective studies, the infection rate at 12-months after a CIED procedure is approximately 1%. The risk of CIED infection may be related to several factors which should be considered with regards to risk minimization. These include technical factors, patient factors, and periprocedural factors. Technical factors include the number of leads and size of generator, the absolute number of interventions which have been performed for the patient, and the operative approach. Patient factors include various non-modifiable underlying comorbidities and potentially modifiable transient conditions. Procedural factors include both peri-operative and post-operative factors. The contemporary PADIT score, derived from a large cohort of CIED patients, is useful for the prediction of infection risk. In this review, we summarize the key information regarding epidemiology, incidence and risk factors for CIED infection.