Low Occurrence of Infections and Death in a Real-World Cohort of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Factors of mortality in patients with cardiac implantable electronic device: 5-year experience

OBJECTIVE

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices has increased in recent years. It has also brought some issues. Among these, the complications of cardiac implantable electronic devices infection and pocket hematoma are difficult to manage. It can be fatal with the contribution of patient-related risk factors. In this study, we aimed to find mortality rates in patients who developed cardiac implantable electronic devices infection and pocket hematoma over 5 years. We also investigated the risk factors affecting mortality in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

METHODS

A total of 288 cardiac implantable electronic devices patients were evaluated. Demographic details, history, and clinical data of all patients were recorded. Cardiac implantable electronic devices infection was defined according to the modified Duke criteria. The national registry was used to ascertain the mortality status of the patients. The patients were divided into two groups (exitus and survival groups). In addition, the pocket hematoma was defined as significant bleeding at the pocket site after cardiac implantable electronic devices placement.

RESULTS

The cardiac implantable electronic devices infection was similar in both groups (p=0.919), and the pocket hematoma was higher in the exitus group (p=0.019). The exitus group had higher usage of P2Y12 inhibitors (p≤0.001) and novel oral anticoagulants (p=0.031). The Cox regression analysis, including mortality-related factors, revealed that renal failure is the most significant risk factor for mortality. Renal failure was linked to a 2.78-fold higher risk of death.

CONCLUSION

No correlation was observed between cardiac implantable electronic devices infection and mortality, whereas pocket hematoma was associated with mortality. Furthermore, renal failure was the cause of the highest mortality rate in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Device infection in patients undergoing pacemaker or defibrillator surgery: risk stratification using the PADIT score

BACKGROUND

The use of an antibacterial envelope is cost-effective for patients at high risk of developing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. The identification of these high-risk patients may be facilitated using a clinical risk score. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the PADIT score for identifying high-risk patients in patients undergoing a CIED procedure in a tertiary academic center.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center study of consecutive patients undergoing a CIED procedure between January 2016 and November 2021. Patients who received an antibacterial envelope were excluded from this study. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for a CIED infection in the first year after the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 2333 CIED procedures were performed in the study period (mean age 61.6 ± 16.3 years, male sex 64.5%, previous CIED infection 1.7%, immunocompromised 5.4%). The median PADIT score was 4 (interquartile range, 2-6). CIED infection occurred in 10 patients (0.43%). The PADIT score had good discrimination in predicting major CIED infection (C-statistic 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 0.86, P = 0.03). Using an optimal PADIT score cut-off value of 7, the risk of CIED infection was higher in the patients with a PADIT score of ≥ 7 in comparison to those with a lower PADIT score (1.23% vs. 0.26%, P = 0.02; odds ratio 4.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 16.6, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The PADIT score is a clinically useful score for identifying patients at high risk of developing CIED infection. The use of an antibacterial envelope in these high-risk patients may be cost-effective.

Short- and long-term survival in patients over 90 years old undergoing pacemaker implantation

AIMS

In Italy, 12-month survival in the general population between 90 and 94 years old is 26%. In very old patients, the benefit of pacemaker implantation in terms of quality and duration of life is unclear. The aim of our study was to analyse clinical characteristics, outcome and factors associated with survival in patients at least 90 years old at the time of the first pacemaker implant.

METHODS

Clinical parameters, device characteristics, survival and predictors of outcome in patients at least 90 years old treated with a pacemaker in our centre in 2019-2020 were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among the 554 patients undergoing pacemaker implantation in our centre during the study interval, 69 (12%) were at least 90 years old; a complete/advanced atrioventricular block was present in 65%. A cardiological comorbidity (excluding atrial fibrillation) was present in 22 patients (32%). Oncological, pulmonary and neurological comorbidities were present in 12 (17%), 19 (28%) and 32 (46%), respectively. Renal impairment was present in 25 patients (36%). After pacemaker implantation, a pneumothorax developed in two patients and lead dislodgment in one. During follow-up (median 17 months, interquartile range: 13-24), 32 patients died (46%), with a 12-month mortality probability of 24.6%. At multivariate analysis, the presence of oncological (hazard ratio (HR) 5.31; P < 0.001) and neurological (HR 6.44; P < 0.001) comorbidities was associated with mortality. Truncating the outcome at 6 months, renal impairment (HR 8.01; P = 0.003), anticoagulant therapy (HR 8.14; P = 0.003), oncological comorbidities (HR 14.1; P < 0.001) and left ventricular function (5% increase of left ventricular ejection fraction: HR 0.66; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with outcome.

CONCLUSION

At our centre, patients at least 90 years old underwent pacemaker implantation mainly for advanced atrioventricular block. One-year survival was excellent, even better than expected in the general population.