Antibiotic prophylaxis in pacemaker surgery--a prospective study

A Case of Revelation Due to Pegfilgrastim

Pegfilgrastim is a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor used in non-myeloid cancer patients to prevent infections and neutropenic fevers. Although this medication is widely used to induce granulocytosis in pancytopenia patients, there are certain instances where such a situation can cause severe side effects. In this case, we present a patient with a history of metastatic colon cancer who is currently taking pegfilgrastim to counter the agranulocytosis caused by his chemotherapy treatment. However, the patient shortly developed localized left-sided jaw swelling, and upon further investigation, the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor revealed an underlying bacteremia. A discussion will also be held regarding the mechanism of action of how pegfilgrastim induced this patient's symptoms as well as the risks and benefits.

A 19-year study on pacemaker-related infections: a claim for using postoperative antibiotics

BACKGROUND

Although the incidence of pacemaker-related infection (PMINF) is low, it necessitates removal of the pacing system. There is currently no consensus on antibiotics during implantation.

METHODS

A prospective database on patients undergoing pacemaker surgery from 1991 to 2009 was reviewed to determine factors associated with PMINF. Specifically, three eras of antibiotic use were compared to elucidate the effect of antibiotics on PMINF: no antibiotics, perioperative antibiotics, and peri- plus postoperative antibiotics.

RESULTS

There were 3,253 procedures with PMINF identified in 46 (1.4%) patients. Over 19 years, PMINF incidence fell from 3.6% (no antibiotics) to 2.9% (perioperative antibiotics), to 0.4% (peri- plus postoperative antibiotics). On univariate analysis, the following were associated with PMINF: nonuse of postoperative antibiotics (3.0% vs 0.4%, P < 0.001), year of implant (P < 0.001), repeat procedures (2.3% vs 1%, P = 0.006), nonuse of perioperative antibiotics (3.6% vs 1.3%, P = 0.027). With postoperative antibiotics, rates were significantly reduced in new implants (1/1,289 = 0.1% vs 22/967 = 2.3%, P < 0.001) and repeat procedures (7/692 = 1.0% vs 16/305 = 5.2%, P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, the following were significant (standardized coefficients denote relative importance): postoperative antibiotics (0.776), repeat procedures (0.508), year of implant (0.142), perioperative antibiotics (0.088).

CONCLUSIONS

The PMINF rate is reduced significantly by perioperative antibiotics with a further significant reduction with postoperative antibiotics. However, the reduction in PMINF rate could be a result of changes in practice in the different time eras. This study suggests consideration of perioperative followed by postoperative antibiotics to minimize pacemaker infections.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) related complications in surgical patients

BACKGROUND

Risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection after surgery is generally low, but affects up to 33% of patients after certain types of surgery. Postoperative MRSA infection can occur as surgical site infections (SSIs), chest infections, or bloodstream infections (bacteraemia). The incidence of MRSA SSIs varies from 1% to 33% depending upon the type of surgery performed and the carrier status of the individuals concerned. The optimal prophylactic antibiotic regimen for the prevention of MRSA after surgery is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of all methods of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of postoperative MRSA infection and related complications in people undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2013 we searched the following databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); NHS Economic Evaluation Database (The Cochrane Library); Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one antibiotic regimen used as prophylaxis for SSIs (and other postoperative infections) with another antibiotic regimen or with no antibiotic, and that reported the methicillin resistance status of the cultured organisms. We did not limit our search for RCTs by language, publication status, publication year, or sample size.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion in the review, and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for comparing binary outcomes between the groups and planned to calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for comparing continuous outcomes. We planned to perform meta-analysis using both a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model. We performed intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs, with 4704 participants, in this review. Eleven trials performed a total of 16 head-to-head comparisons of different prophylactic antibiotic regimens. Antibiotic prophylaxis was compared with no antibiotic prophylaxis in one trial. All the trials were at high risk of bias. With the exception of one trial in which all the participants were positive for nasal carriage of MRSA or had had previous MRSA infections, it does not appear that MRSA was tested or eradicated prior to surgery; nor does it appear that there was high prevalence of MRSA carrier status in the people undergoing surgery.There was no sufficient clinical similarity between the trials to perform a meta-analysis. The overall all-cause mortality in four trials that reported mortality was 14/1401 (1.0%) and there were no significant differences in mortality between the intervention and control groups in each of the individual comparisons. There were no antibiotic-related serious adverse events in any of the 561 people randomised to the seven different antibiotic regimens in four trials (three trials that reported mortality and one other trial). None of the trials reported quality of life, total length of hospital stay or the use of healthcare resources. Overall, 221/4032 (5.5%) people developed SSIs due to all organisms, and 46/4704 (1.0%) people developed SSIs due to MRSA.In the 15 comparisons that compared one antibiotic regimen with another, there were no significant differences in the proportion of people who developed SSIs. In the single trial that compared an antibiotic regimen with placebo, the proportion of people who developed SSIs was significantly lower in the group that received antibiotic prophylaxis with co-amoxiclav (or cefotaxime if allergic to penicillin) compared with placebo (all SSI: RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; MRSA SSI RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.83). In two trials that reported MRSA infections other than SSI, 19/478 (4.5%) people developed MRSA infections including SSI, chest infection and bacteraemia. There were no significant differences in the proportion of people who developed MRSA infections at any body site in these two comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with co-amoxiclav decreases the proportion of people developing MRSA infections compared with placebo in people without malignant disease undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion, although this may be due to decreasing overall infection thereby preventing wounds from becoming secondarily infected with MRSA. There is currently no other evidence to suggest that using a combination of multiple prophylactic antibiotics or administering prophylactic antibiotics for an increased duration is of benefit to people undergoing surgery in terms of reducing MRSA infections. Well designed RCTs assessing the clinical effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens are necessary on this topic.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis with a Single Dose of Cefazolin During Pacemaker Implantation: Incidence of Long-Term Infective Complications

OBJECTIVE

Systemic and localized infections related to permanent pacemaker implantation are not common, but are serious and potentially life-threatening complications. The aims of this prospective observational study were: (1) to assess the safety and long-term efficacy of a simplified scheme of antibiotic prophylaxis, and (2) to identify the predictors of long-term infective complications, in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation or replacement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From October 1998 to July 2001, 852 patients (mean age 77.0 +/- 9.2 years; 474 men) who underwent new permanent pacemaker implantation (69.6%) or pulse generator replacement (30.4%) received a mini-bag of 2 g of cefazolin diluted in 50 mL of saline solution, administered intravenously in 20 minutes before the beginning of the procedure. Early (within 2 months of implantation) and late major and minor infective complications were recorded. During the earlier phase, minor complications were observed in 9 patients (1%). During the long-term phase of the surveillance (mean 25.6 +/- 11.0 months, range 12-55 months) major infective complications were observed in 6 patients (0.7%). On multivariate analysis, no clinical or procedural variable predicted the occurrence of long-term infective complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate the safety and efficacy of a single, intravenous 2 g dose of cefazolin in preventing infective complications related to pacemaker implantation or replacement. No clinical or procedural variable predicted the occurrence of long-term infective complications.

Prophylactic use of vancomycin in adult cardiology and cardiac surgery

The recent appearance of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis strains that have reduced susceptibility to vancomycin, and the spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococci, raise the specter of endovascular infections that will be difficult or impossible to cure with available drugs. We review issues concerning the prophylactic use of vancomycin in adult cardiology and cardiac surgery with special attention to dosing and indications. There is no indication for the routine use of prophylactic vancomycin in pacemaker implantations, cardiac catheterization, and transesophageal echocardiography. In institutions with a high incidence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus and S. epidermidis, vancomycin may be used for antibiotic prophylaxis in place of cephalosporins for pacemaker or defibrillator implantation. The strongest evidence in support of the prophylactic use of vancomycin is during cardiac surgeries, particularly valvular surgeries in institutions with a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus and S. epidermidis. When vancomycin is used prior to open heart surgery, the dose should be 15 mg/kg rather than the standard 1 g dose that is often recommended in the literature and used by 85% of institutional pharmacists who responded to our survey. Cardiologists and cardiac surgeons should assume leadership roles in promoting its responsible use.

Surgical lead-preserving procedures for pacemaker pocket infection

BACKGROUND

In the treatment of pacemaker pocket infection, removal of the entire pacing system has been considered necessary to avoid recurrent infection. We report a series of patients treated surgically by our lead-preserving procedures.

METHODS

Between 1990 and 2001, a total of 18 patients underwent one of two types of lead-preserving procedures. Procedure 1 preserves the full length of the lead, and procedure 2 preserves only the distal part of the lead. Signs of bacteremia, endocarditis, or purulent material within the lead insulation preclude application of these procedures in patients with potential or definite pacemaker pocket infection.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients who met the indications for our procedures were discharged 7 to 14 days (8.9 +/- 2.4 days, mean +/- SD) postoperatively without signs of infection and were followed up for a total of 987 patient-months until the close of the study or death without recurrent infection. The remaining 1 patient, who did not meet the indications, suffered reinfection soon after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

The follow-up data suggest that our lead-preserving procedures should be considered as alternatives to conventional removal of the entire pacing system in cases of pocket infection that meet specific criteria.

[Secondary infections after pacemaker implantation]

INTRODUCTION

Infectious complications following pacemaker implantation are not common but may be particularly severe. Localized wound infections at the site of implantation have been reported in 0.5% of the cases in the most recent series, with an average of about 2%. The incidence of septicemia and infectious endocarditis is lower, about 0.5% of the cases. The operator's experience, the duration of the procedure and repeat procedures are considered to be predisposing factors.

CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS

The main cause of these infections has been recently demonstrated to be local contamination during implantation. The commonest causal organism is Staphylococcus (75 to 92% of the cases), Staphylococcus aureus being the cause of acute infections (less than 6 weeks), whereas Staphylococcus epidermidis is associated with cases of secondary infection (more than 2 months). The usual clinical presentation is infection at the site of the pacemaker but other forms such as abscess, endocarditis, rejection of the implanted material, septic emboli or phlebitis have been described. The diagnosis is confirmed by local and systemic biological investigations and by echocardiography (especially transesophageal echocardiography) in cases of right heart endocarditis. There are two axes of treatment: bactericidal double antibiotherapy and surgical ablation of the infected material either percutaneously or by cardiotomy.

FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS

A recent meta-analysis supported the role of systematic, preoperative, prophylactic antibiotic therapy in the prevention of these complications. These data should be confirmed by suitably powered clinical trials.

Hydrogen peroxide for prevention of bacterial growth on polymer biomaterials

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread use of potent antibiotics, infections of artificial implants and catheters are of increasing concern. We tested whether local treatment with 3% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), long known as an inexpensive wound disinfectant, could prevent or reduce bacterial growth on polymer biomaterials.

METHODS

Two-centimeter-long pieces of polyurethane and silicone tubing were contaminated with a standardized solution of Staphylococcus epidermidis (10(5)/mL) and then rinsed and wiped with saline (0.9%) solution. Bacterial growth was assessed after incubation at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. Bacterial colonies were compared for the following treatments: wiping only with saline; wiping with 1.5%, 2%, or 3% H2O2; pretreating biomaterials with 3% H2O2 and subsequent contamination for 2 and 4 hours without treatment after contamination; and contamination of tubings 1 month after pretreatment with 3% H2O2. The effect of 3% H2O2 was also assessed on contamination with Escherichia coli.

RESULTS

Bacterial growth was reduced by more than 99% when the contaminated tubes were treated with 3% H2O2 compared with saline control (p < 0.001). Lower concentrations of H2O2 were less effective. The length of the contamination period had no influence on the effectiveness of H2O2 when used on polyurethane but did with silicone tubings. Pretreatment with H2O2 1 month before contamination still reduced bacterial growth rate by 90% on polyurethane and by 75% on silicone tubings. Comparable effects on bacterial growth rate were observed for staphylococci (-90%, p < 0.001) and escherichiae (-90%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Local treatment with 3% H2O2 significantly reduced bacterial growth on polymer biomaterials even for 1 month after treatment. This finding might influence clinical strategies of prevention of foreign body infection.

Role of the preaxillary flora in pacemaker infections: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Infection remains a severe complication after pacemaker implantation. The purpose of our prospective study was to evaluate the role of the local bacteriologic flora in its occurrence.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Specimens were collected at the site of implantation for culture from the skin and the pocket before and after insertion in a consecutive series of patients who underwent elective permanent pacemaker implantation. Microorganisms isolated both at the time of insertion and of any potentially infective complication were compared by using conventional speciation and ribotyping. There were 103 patients (67 men and 36 women) whose age ranged from 16 to 93 years (mean+/-SD, 67+/-15). At the time of pacemaker implantation, a total of 267 isolates were identified. The majority (85%) were staphylococci. During a mean follow-up of 16.5 months (range, 1 to 24), infection occurred in four patients (3.9%). In two of them, an isolate of Staphylococcus schleiferi was recognized by molecular method as identical to the one previously found in the pacemaker pocket. In one patient, Staphylococcus aureus, an organism that was absent at the time of pacemaker insertion, was isolated. In another patient, a Staphylococcus epidermidis was identified both at the time of pacemaker insertion and when erosion occurred; however, their antibiotic resistance profiles were different.

CONCLUSIONS

This study strongly supports the hypothesis that pacemaker-related infections are mainly due to local contamination during implantation. S schleiferi appears to play an underestimated role in infectious colonization of implanted biomaterials and should be regarded as an important opportunistic pathogen.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for permanent pacemaker implantation: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Infection remains a serious complication after permanent pacemaker implantation. Antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently prescribed at the time of insertion to reduce its incidence, although results of well-designed, controlled studies are lacking.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a meta-analysis of all available randomized trials to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce infection rates after permanent pacemaker implantation. Reports of trials were identified through a Medline, Embase, Current Contents, and an extensive bibliography search. Trials that met the following criteria were included: (1) prospective, randomized, controlled, open or blind trials; (2) patients assigned to a systemic antibiotic group or a control group; (3) end point events related to any infection after pacemaker implantation: wound infection, septicemia, pocket abscess, purulent secretion, right infective endocarditis, inflammatory signs, a positive culture, septic pulmonary embolism, or repeat operation for an infective complication. Seven trials met the inclusion criteria. They included 2023 patients with established permanent pacemaker implantation (new implants or replacements). The incidence of end point events in control groups ranged from 0% to 12%. The meta-analysis suggested a consistent protective effect of antibiotic pretreatment (P=.0046; common odds ratio: 0.256, 95% confidence interval: 0.10 to 0.656).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of the present meta-analysis suggest that systemic antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduces the incidence of potentially serious infective complications after permanent pacemaker implantation. They support the use of prophylactic antibiotics at the time of pacemaker insertion to prevent short-term pocket infection, skin erosion or septicemia.

Postcardiac surgery infections

Infections following cardiac surgery, although generally uncommon, are associated with difficult management decisions and significant morbidity and mortality. They often present while the patient is either in a critical care unit, or requires CCU management. This review analyzes infections related to median sternotomy wounds, prosthetic heart valves, transvenous permanent pacemakers, automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and left ventricular assist devices. The diagnosis, microbiology, treatment and outcome of each is also discussed.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in permanent pacemaker implantation: a prospective randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Pacemaker pocket infection is a potentially serious problem after permanent pacemaker implantation. Antibiotic prophylaxis is commonly prescribed to reduce the incidence of this complication, but current trial evidence of its efficacy is conflicting. A large prospective randomised trial was therefore performed of antibiotic prophylaxis in permanent pacemaker implantation. The intention was firstly to determine whether antibiotic prophylaxis is efficacious in these patients and secondly to identify which patients are at the highest risk of infection.

METHODS

A prospective randomised open trial of flucloxacillin (clindamycin if the patient was allergic to penicillin) v no antibiotic was performed in a cohort of patients undergoing first implantation of a permanent pacing system over a 17 month period. Intravenous antibiotics were started at the time of implantation and continued for 48 hours. The trial endpoint was a repeat operation for an infective complication.

RESULTS

473 patients were entered into a randomised trial. 224 received antibiotic prophylaxis and 249 received no antibiotics. A further 183 patients were not randomised but were treated according to the operator's preference (64 antibiotics, 119 no antibiotics); these patients are included only in the analysis of predictors of infection. Patients were followed up for a mean (SD) of 19(5) months. Among the patients in the randomised group there were nine infections requiring a repeat operation, all in the group not receiving antibiotic (P = 0.003). In the total patient cohort there were 13 infections, all but one in the non-antibiotic group (P = 0.006). Nine of the infections presented as erosion of the pulse generator or electrode, three as septicaemia secondary to Staphylococcus aureus, and one as a pocket abscess secondary to Staphylococcus epidermidis. Infections were significantly more common when the operator was inexperienced (< or = 100 previous patients), the operation was prolonged, or after a repeat operation for non-infective complications (principally lead displacement). Infection was not significantly more common in patients identified preoperatively as being at high risk (for example patients with diabetes mellitus, patients receiving long term steroid treatment), although there was a trend in this direction.

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced the incidence of infective complications requiring a repeat operation after permanent pacemaker implantation. It is suggested that antibiotics should be used routinely.

[Antibiotic prophylaxis in heart surgery]

Cardiac surgery enters mainly into the class I of Altemeier ("clean surgery"). However, many factors may explain an intraoperative contamination: surgery of long duration, extra-corporeal circulation, aspiration of blood and air, immunodepression...). In fact, the infectious risk decreases from about 25% with placebo to 5% with prophylactic antibiotics. The staphylococcal infections are the most frequent (mediastinitis, endocarditis, parietal infections...). Cephalosporins, particularly of second-generation type (cefamandole, cefuroxime), perform better than antistaphylococcal penicillins. The combination with an amino-side may be used when Gram negative bacilli infection prevalence is high. Vancomycin is efficient but hypotension and renal impairment have been reported. Therefore, vancomycin is used in patients allergic to cephalosporins, when a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus or enterococci infections is reported, or when the patient has recently received broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy. The antibiotic doses must take into account the haemodilution due to extracorporeal circulation and the necessity to obtain sufficient serum concentrations throughout surgery. A prophylaxis of more than 48 hours is not associated with an improved outcome. In cardiac transplantation a prophylaxis is essential, but is still questioned during the insertion of pace-markers. In any case, the antibiotic prophylaxis must take into account the bacterial prevalence of each institution.

Influence of preoperative showers on staphylococcal skin colonization: a comparative trial of antiseptic skin cleansers

We undertook a prospective randomized observer-blinded study comparing the ability of preoperative showers with chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiclens), povidone-iodine (Betadine), and a lotion soap (Safe 'N Sure) to diminish the staphylococcal skin flora of patients. By block randomization, patients scheduled for an elective cardiac operation or coronary artery angioplasty were assigned to shower with one of the study skin cleansers either once (evening only) or twice (both evening and morning) before the procedure. Semiquantitative samples for culture were obtained from the subclavian and inguinal sites on the evening before the procedure (baseline culture) and again the next morning before the operation. The chlorhexidine skin cleanser consistently reduced staphylococcal colony counts at both the subclavian and inguinal sites before the procedure. This reduction was significant for patients showering both evening and morning (p less than 0.05). The use of the povidone-iodine skin cleanser inconsistently affected skin flora. Patients using lotion soap either experienced no change or had an increase in colony counts. Chlorhexidine is more effective than povidone-iodine in diminishing skin colonization with staphylococci in patients before operation. Repeated applications of chlorhexidine are superior to a single shower with this agent.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in pacemaker surgery: a prospective double blind trial with systemic administration of antibiotic versus placebo at implantation of cardiac pacemakers

In a double blind clinical trial, 106 consecutive patients scheduled for pacemaker implantation were randomly assigned either to a systemic prophylaxis group (SPG) (to be given flucloxacillin) or to a control group who would be given a placebo (CPG). The SPG group received 2 g IV flucloxacillin 1 hour before the operation, then 1 g perorally every 8 hours for the next five days. In the CPG group, placebo infusions and tablets were given at the same schedule. There were a total of 106 patients (SPG 52, CPG 54) who met the criteria of the study. Of these, 102 patients (SPG 50, CPG 52) completed a follow-up of 7-35 months. Infection of the pacemaker system was not diagnosed in any patient in either group. Tissue fluid was drawn 24 hours postoperatively from the pacemaker pocket for culture and for determination of pocket antibiotic concentration. The mean flucloxacillin concentration of pocket fluid from 23 patients in the SPG was 7.5 micrograms/ml. The bacteriological cultures were positive in 9/32 patients in the SPG group and in 10/34 patients in the CPG group. This study suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis need not routinely be given at implantation of permanent pacemaker systems.

Pacemaker infections. A 2-year follow-up of antibiotic prophylaxis

To evaluate the long-term effect of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis at pacemaker surgery, an analysis was made of infections in 272 patients submitted to 303 consecutive pacemaker operations. The follow-up time was 24-33 months. Antibiotic prophylaxis had been given in all cases. The overall infection rate was 4.0%: The incidence after new implant was 3.8%, generator replacement 2.4%, electrode replacement 15% and early reoperation 4.2%, with the only statistically significant difference between electrode replacement and generator replacement. The interval between operation and appearance of infection was 3 days to 18 months. The causal microorganisms were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis in four patients, methicillin-sensitive S. epidermis in one patient and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus in three. An anaerobic gram-positive coccus was cultured in one patient and a nonenteric gram-negative rod in another. Five infections were cured by antibiotic treatment alone, but in seven cases surgery was also needed. The incidence of infection was significantly increased when potential predisposing factors--diabetes mellitus, postoperative hematoma and use of a temporary electrode--were present.