Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection: From an Infection Prevention Perspective

The economic burden of cardiac implantable electronic device infections in Alberta, Canada: a population-based study using validated administrative data

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are being inserted with increasing frequency. Severe surgical site infections (SSI) that occur after device implantation substantially impact patient morbidity and mortality and can result in multiple hospital admissions and repeat surgeries. It is important to understand the costs associated with these infections as well as healthcare utilization. Therefore, we conducted a population-based study in the province of Alberta, Canada to understand the economic burden of these infections.

METHODS

A cohort of adult patients in Alberta who had CIEDs inserted or generators replaced between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2019 was used. A validated algorithm of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes to identify complex (deep/organ space) SSIs that occurred within the subsequent year was applied to the cohort. The overall mean 12-month inpatient and outpatient costs for the infection and non-infection groups were assessed. In order to control for variables that may influence costs, propensity score matching was completed and incremental costs between those with and without infection were calculated. As secondary outcomes, number of outpatient visits, hospitalizations and length of stay were assessed.

RESULTS

There were 26,049 procedures performed during our study period, of which 320 (1.23%) resulted in SSIs. In both unadjusted costs and propensity score matched costs the infection group was associated with increased costs. Overall mean cost was $145,312 in the infection group versus $34,264 in the non-infection group. The incremental difference in those with infection versus those without in the propensity score match was $90,620 (Standard deviation $190,185). Approximately 70% of costs were driven by inpatient hospitalizations. Inpatients hospitalizations, length of stay and outpatient visits were all increased in the infection group.

CONCLUSIONS

CIED infections are associated with increased costs and are a burden to the healthcare system. This highlights a need to recognize increasing SSI rates and implement measures to minimize infection risk. Further studies should endeavor to apply this work to full economic evaluations to better understand and identify cost-effective infection mitigation strategies.

Prevention of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: A Review

The importance of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in the treatment of cardiac rhythm disturbances, heart failure, and the prevention of sudden cardiac death is indisputable. However, CIED therapy is associated with complications, among which infections are particularly unfavourable in terms of prognosis. The diagnosis and management of CIED infections remain complex, with a significant impact on mortality and healthcare costs. For these reasons, the risk factors for CIED infections and methods of their prevention have been assessed in recent years. This review summarises the current state of knowledge on the subject. We also outlined the role of alternative methods, such as subcutaneous defibrillators, leadless pacemakers, and wearable cardioverter defibrillators.

Early modified primary closure for treatment of cardiac implantable electronic device pocket infections

BACKGROUND

Guidance for wound management of the vacated generator pocket in cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) pocket infections after removal of all hardware and tissue debridement is limited. The typical surgical technique for management of a purulent wound is to allow healing by secondary intention. An alternative approach uses negative pressure wound therapy with or without delayed primary closure. While effective in managing infection, these approaches increase hospital length of stay and costs. We present our experience with a third option: modified early primary wound closure over a suction device.

METHODS

All patients with CIED pocket infections who presented to our institution between September 2018 and October 2020 underwent extraction of hardware and modified primary wound closure over a negative pressure Jackson-Pratt drain. Length of hospital and postoperative stay, complications, and recurrent infections were recorded.

RESULTS

During the study period, 14 patients underwent modified primary wound closure for CIED pocket infections. Mean length of hospital stay was 6.64 days ± 4.01 days (standard deviation [SD]). Mean postoperative length of stay was 3.92 ± 2.21 days (SD). Two patients (both on intravenous heparin for mechanical valve prostheses) required re-exploration for bleeding. No patients developed recurrent infection at a mean follow up of 363 ± 245 days (SD).

CONCLUSION

Based on our experience, early modified primary wound closure for CIED pocket infections appears to be safe and allows for prompt discharge with no observed re-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.

A Randomized Control Trial Comparing Transparent Film Dressings and Conventional Occlusive Dressings for Elective Surgical Procedures

BACKGROUND:

Surgical site infection is one of the major health-care-associated problems causing substantial morbidity and mortality and constituting a financial burden on hospitals as well. The wound management is one of the crucial evidence-based strategies in the reduction of surgical site infection rates

AIM:

To study the impact of standardisation of transparent semipermeable dressing procedure on the rate of surgical site infection in comparison with conventional dressing in clean and clean-contaminated surgeries.

METHODS:

The study included 100 patients who were admitted to surgical wards in Cairo university hospitals, for clean and clean-contaminated operations, in the period from February 2017 to August 2017. Immunocompromised and uncontrolled diabetic patients were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups; in the first group, patients wounds were covered using transparent semipermeable dressing, while the second group patients’ wounds were covered using conventional occlusive gauze dressing. Patients were followed up for criteria of infection every other day during the first week then at two weeks, three weeks and four weeks.

RESULTS:

In clean and clean-contaminated operations, the transparent dressing group showed a significantly lesser rate of surgical site infection at (2%), compared with the conventional occlusive gauze dressing group with a surgical site infection rate of (14%) (p-value of 0.02).

CONCLUSION:

The transparent semipermeable dressing is effective in reducing surgical site infection rate in clean and clean-contaminated operations.

New Insights into Predictors of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection

Infection is an important complication of cardiac implantable electronic device procedures. To further study the factors associated with infection, we retrospectively reviewed the records of 3,205 consecutive patients who had undergone de novo or revision cardiac electronic device implantation at our institution from March 2011 through March 2015. We recorded all infections and specified whether they were related to the characteristics of the patient, device, or procedure. To identify predictors of infection, we performed multivariate analysis. Device infections were identified in 85 patients (2.7%), at a mean follow-up time of 27 ± 11 months. The main predictors of device infection were use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator device (odds ratio [OR]=16; 95% CI, 4.14-61.85; P=0.0001), stage 3 chronic kidney disease (OR=9.41; 95% CI, 1.77-50.04; P=0.009), a revision procedure (OR=8.8; 95% CI, 3.37-23.2; P=0.0001), or postoperative hematoma (OR=6.9; 95% CI, 1.58-30.2; P=0.01). We also identified 2 novel predictors of infection: a low body mass index of <20 kg/m² (OR=1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P=0.005), and use of povidone-iodine rather than chlorhexidine-alcohol for topical antisepsis (OR=4.4; 95% CI, 2.01-9.4; P=0.03). We conclude that comorbidities, device characteristics, procedure types, and postoperative noninfective complications all increase the risk of device infection after a cardiac implantable electronic device procedure.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society 2016 Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Guidelines

Sudden cardiac death is a major public health issue in Canada. However, despite the overwhelming evidence to support the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in the prevention of cardiac death there remains significant variability in implantation rates across Canada. Since the most recent Canadian Cardiovascular Society position statement on ICD use in Canada in 2005, there has been a plethora of new scientific information to assist physicians in their discussions with patients considered for ICD implantation to prevent sudden cardiac death due to ventricular arrhythmias. We have reviewed, critically appraised, and synthesized the pertinent evidence to develop recommendations regarding: (1) ICD implantation in the primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with and without ischemic heart disease; (2) when it is reasonable to withhold ICD implantation on the basis of comorbidities; (3) ICD implantation in patients listed for heart transplantation; (4) implantation of a single- vs dual-chamber ICD; (5) implantation of single- vs dual-coil ICD leads; (6) the role of subcutaneous ICDs; and (7) ICD implantation infection prevention strategies. We expect that this document, in combination with the companion article that addresses the implementation of these guidelines, will assist all medical professionals with the care of patients who have had or at risk of sudden cardiac death.

Treatment of Infected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

With their rising benefits, cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) such as pacemakers and left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have witnessed a sharp rise in use over the past 50 years. As indications for use broaden, so too does their widespread employment with its attendant rise of CIED infections. Such large numbers of infections have inspired various algorithms mandating treatment. Early diagnosis of inciting organisms is crucial to tailoring appropriate antibiotic and or antifungal treatment. In addition, surgical debridement and explant of the device have been a longstanding modality of care. More novel therapies focus on salvage of the device by way of serial washouts and instilling drug-eluting antibiotic impregnated beads into the wound. The wound is then serially debrided until clean and closed. This technique is better suited to patients whose device cannot be removed, patients who are poor candidates for cardiac surgery, or patients who have failed conventional prior treatments.