Advances in cardiac implantable electronic device infection prevention: should we push the envelope?

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 359-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cameron T Lambert ◽  
Bruce L Wilkoff ◽  
Khaldoun G Tarakji
2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sangeeta Sastry ◽  
Riaz Rahman ◽  
Mohamed H. Yassin

A cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) is indicated for patients with severely reduced ejection fraction or with life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias. Infection related to a CIED is one of the most feared complications of this life-saving device. The rate of CIED infection has been estimated to be between 2 and 25; though evidence shows that this rate continues to rise with increasing expenditure to the patient as well as healthcare systems. Multiple risk factors have been attributed to the increased rates of CIED infection and host comorbidities as well as procedure related risks. Infection prevention efforts are being developed as defined bundles in numerous hospitals around the country given the increased morbidity and mortality from CIED related infections. This paper aims at reviewing the various infection prevention measures employed at hospitals and also highlights the areas that have relatively less established evidence for efficacy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad U Khan ◽  
Ahmad Naeem Lone ◽  
Muhammad Khan ◽  
shahul valavoor ◽  
Muhammad Munir ◽  
...  

Introduction: Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) infections are a major source of morbidity, mortality and increased healthcare cost. There are several well established risk factors associated with increased infection. An antibiotic coated envelope has been developed as an infection prevention intervention. Hypothesis: Whether antibiotic coated envelope is an effective preventive strategy against Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections. Methods: 6 trials comparing use of antibiotic envelope to control, including 1 randomized trial and 5 cohort studies were selected using PubMed and Embase data bases through May 2019. The efficacy end point was prevention of CIED Infection. Outcomes were combined using random effects model and estimated by odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: In our analysis of total 12,024 patients undergoing CIED implantation, 5,844 patients received antibiotic envelope while 6,180 patients were included in the control group. Antibiotic envelope was superior to control in reducing the risk of device infection (OR 0.40 CI [0.17-0.95], p=0.04). Conclusions: The use of antibiotic envelope in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED) is associated with reduced incidence of CIED infection.


Author(s):  
Bruce L. Wilkoff ◽  
Giuseppe Boriani ◽  
Suneet Mittal ◽  
Jeanne E. Poole ◽  
Charles Kennergren ◽  
...  

Background: In the WRAP-IT trial (Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention), adjunctive use of an absorbable antibacterial envelope resulted in a 40% reduction of major cardiac implantable electronic device infection without increased risk of complication in 6983 patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device revision, replacement, upgrade, or initial cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implant. There is limited information on the cost-effectiveness of this strategy. As a prespecified objective, we evaluated antibacterial envelope cost-effectiveness compared with standard-of-care infection prevention strategies in the US healthcare system. Methods: A decision tree model was used to compare costs and outcomes of antibacterial envelope (TYRX) use adjunctive to standard-of-care infection prevention versus standard-of-care alone over a lifelong time horizon. The analysis was performed from an integrated payer-provider network perspective. Infection rates, antibacterial envelope effectiveness, infection treatment costs and patterns, infection-related mortality, and utility estimates were obtained from the WRAP-IT trial. Life expectancy and long-term costs associated with device replacement, follow-up, and healthcare utilization were sourced from the literature. Costs and quality-adjusted life years were discounted at 3%. An upper willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life year was used to determine cost-effectiveness, in alignment with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association practice guidelines and as supported by the World Health Organization and contemporary literature. Results: The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the antibacterial envelope compared with standard-of-care was $112 603/quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold in 74% of iterations in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis and was most sensitive to the following model inputs: infection-related mortality, life expectancy, and infection cost. Conclusions: The absorbable antibacterial envelope was associated with a cost-effectiveness ratio below contemporary benchmarks in the WRAP-IT patient population, suggesting that the envelope provides value for the US healthcare system by reducing the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infection. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02277990.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakrin Kewcharoen ◽  
Chanavuth Kanitsoraphan ◽  
Sittinun Thangjui ◽  
Thiratest Leesutipornchai ◽  
Sakditad Saowapa ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 102568
Author(s):  
Fatehi Elzein ◽  
Eid Alsufyani ◽  
Yahya Al Hebaishi ◽  
Mohammed Mosaad ◽  
Moayad Alqurashi ◽  
...  

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakrin Kewcharoen ◽  
Chanavuth Kanitsoraphan ◽  
Sittinun Thangjui ◽  
Thiratest Leesutipornchai ◽  
Leenhapong Navaravong

Introduction: Several studies have shown inconsistent relationship between post-implantation hematoma (PH) and cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effect of PH and the risk of CIED infection. Hypothesis: PH increases the risk of CIED infection. Methods: We searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 2020. Included studies were cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and randomized controlled trials that reported incidence of PH and CIED infection during the follow-up period. CIED infection was defined as either a device-related local or systemic infection. Data from each study were combined using the random-effects, generic inverse variance method of Der Simonian and Laird to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Fourteen studies from 2006 to 2018 were included, involving a total of 28,319 participants. There were 6 cohort studies, 7 case-control studies and 1 randomized controlled trial. In random-effect model, we found that PH significantly increases the risk of overall CIED infection (OR = 6.30, 95%CI: 3.87-10.24, I2=49.3%) (Figure 1). There was no publication bias observed in the funnel plot as well as no small-study effect observed in Egger’s test. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that PH significantly increases the risk of CIED infection. Precaution should be taken to during device implantation to reduce PH and subsequent CIED infection.


2017 ◽  
Vol 84 (12 suppl 3) ◽  
pp. 47-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cameron T. Lambert ◽  
Khaldoun G. Tarakji

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document