Perioperative management for the prevention of bacterial infection in cardiac implantable electronic device placement

Physician antibiotic hydration preferences for biologic antibacterial envelopes during cardiac implantable device procedures

Background

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a potentially serious complication of CIED procedures. Infection risk mitigation includes using guideline-recommended pre-operative intravenous antibacterial prophylaxis (IV ABX). The use of antibiotic-eluting CIED envelopes has also been shown to reduce infection risk. The relationship between and potential benefits associated with guideline-recommended IV ABX in combination with antibacterial envelopes have not been characterized.

Methods

Biologic envelopes made from non-crosslinked extracellular matrix (ECM) were implanted into 1,102 patients receiving CIEDs. The implanting physician decided patient selection for using a biologic envelope and envelope hydration solution. Observational data was analyzed on IV ABX utilization rates, antibacterial envelope usage, and infection outcomes.

Results

Overall compliance with IV ABX was 96.6%, and most patients received a biologic envelope hydrated in antibiotics (77.1%). After a mean follow-up of 223 days, infection rates were higher for sites using IV ABX <80% of the time vs. sites using ≥80% (5.6% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.008). Physicians demonstrated preference for hydration solutions containing gentamicin in higher-risk patients, which was found by multivariate analysis to be associated with a threefold reduction in infection risk (OR 3.0, 95% CI, 1.0-10.0).

Conclusion

These findings suggest that use of antibiotics, particularly gentamicin, in biologic envelope hydration solution may reduce infection risk, and use of antibacterial envelopes without adjunct IV ABX may not be sufficient to reduce CIED infections.

Clinical trial registration

[https://clinicaltrials.gov/], identifier [NCT02530970].

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in hemodialysis patients: an updated review

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading life-threatening complications in hemodialysis patients. In this scenario, both tachy-arrhythmias and brady-arrhythmias are involved with related hemodialysis and nonhemodialysis-dependent mechanisms; moreover, those arrhythmias usually occur in different time intervals before sudden cardiac death (SCD). Furthermore, current evidence shows that the presence of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) reduces the benefits of implantable cardioverter--defibrillators (ICDs), which increases the risk of both arrhythmic and nonarrhythmic death, especially in patients with advanced stages of heart failure. Notably, patients with advanced CKD show a more severe degree of heart failure compared with mild CKD patients. However, the benefits of the ICD implantation in the primary prevention of hemodialysis patients is still controversial, and by now, no significant benefits have emerged compared with nonhemodialysis-dependent CKD patients. In secondary prevention, hemodialysis patients with ICD implantation have higher mortality rates compared with nonhemodialysis-dependent CKD patients with ICD. On the other hand, most articles include hemodialysis patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, neglecting those with preserved systolic function. This review focuses on the epidemiology of SCD in the setting of hemodialysis and the current evidence on ICD implantation in patients on hemodialysis therapy analyzing novel strategies, which might reduce the risk of ICD placing.

Evidence-Based Strategies to Promote Long-Term Cardiac Implant Site Health: Review of the Literature

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are commonly used nowadays. The association between CIED placement and infections is responsible for the high mortality and device explantation rate. Since CIED placement has increased in the past decade, CIED-related complications have risen. In order to reduce the CIED-related complications rate, the prevention of device infection represents the main goal. Over time, many different studies have proven the importance of the measures to prevent CIED-related infections. This review aims to collect the actual recommendations for CIED infection prevention, providing an overview of the main evidence-based strategies.

Implant-Associated Infections: A Review of the Safety of Cardiac Implants

Cardiac implantations are among the most critical, and life-saving patient management procedures. Most cardiac implantations are performed to correct abnormalities in the conduction and the rhythm of the heart. Because the implants are intended for long-term use ranging from months to years, the failure of an implant is considered a major setback both in the patients as well as surgeons' perspectives. Implant failures can have multifactorial reasons, amongst which infectious causes need to be adequately addressed. This review attempts to evaluate the nature of implants, etiology, predisposing factors, infection control, and preventive strategies for cardiac implant-associated infections.

Preventive infection control in cardiac device implantation

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic devices have been increasingly used in recent years; as a result, there has been a rise in device-related complications. Pacemaker-associated infection is challenging to manage, including system removal, antimicrobial therapy and reimplantation at another site. The aim of this study was to evaluate adherence to the steps in an infection control protocol in cardiac device implantation.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients referred for cardiac device implantation were enrolled in the study. They were evaluated with regard to the application of infection control measures during device implantation and followed-up for 6 months to detect clinical signs of device-related infection (DRI). A significant correlation was found between the development of postoperative DRI and the presence or absence of the following factors: increasing patient age (p = 0.010), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.024), number of operators ≥4 (p = 0.001), implantation of a biventricular system (p = 0.025), duration of sterilization (p = 0.001), wearing double gloves (p < 0.001) and postoperative hematoma (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified the following risk factors for DRI: age, diabetes mellitus and cardiac resynchronization therapy system implantation (p = 0.025). Antiseptic measures such as double-glove technique and duration of skin disinfection prior to the procedure, as well as environmental factors, also influenced device infection, as did the number of operators/staff and pocket hematoma.

Vascularized Muscle Flap to Reduce Wound Breakdown During Flexible Electrode-Mediated Functional Electrical Stimulation After Peripheral Nerve Injury

The success of devices delivering functional electrical stimulation (FES) has been hindered by complications related to implants including skin breakdown and subsequent wound dehiscence. Our hypothesis was that a vascularized muscle flap along the dorsal surface of an epimysial electrode would prevent skin breakdown during FES therapy to treat atrophy of the gastrocnemius muscle during peripheral nerve injury. Resection of a tibial nerve segment with subsequent electrode implantation on the dorsal surfaces of the gastrocnemius muscle was performed on ten Lewis rats. In five rats, the biceps femoris (BF) muscle was dissected and placed along the dorsal surface of the electrode (Flap group). The other five animals did not undergo flap placement (No Flap group). All animals were treated with daily FES therapy for 2 weeks and degree of immune response and skin breakdown were evaluated. The postoperative course of one animal in the No Flap group was complicated by complete wound dehiscence requiring euthanasia of the animal on postoperative day 4. The remaining 4 No Flap animals showed evidence of ulceration at the implant by postoperative day 7. The 5 animals in the Flap group did not have ulcerative lesions. Excised tissue at postoperative day 14 examined by histology and in vivo Imaging System (IVIS) showed decreased implant-induced inflammation in the Flap group. Expression of specific markers for local foreign body response were also decreased in the Flap group.

Noninvasive tissue adhesive for cardiac implantable electronic device pocket closure: the TAPE pilot study

PURPOSE

Device infection is a serious complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). Ensuring complete pocket closure can be time consuming, but remains vital to prevent infection. The Zip® Surgical Skin Closure (ZIP) is a noninvasive adhesive device applied to the skin as an alternative to subcuticular sutures for skin closure. We hypothesized that using this device would decrease pocket closure times without increasing the risk of pocket infections. This is a single center, retrospective cohort study to compare pocket closure times and infection rates between ZIP and standard suture for CIED pocket closure.

METHODS

Two separate groups of consecutive new intravenous implants, upgrades, and pulse generator replacements from October 2015 to April 2017 were included. A total of 175 patients were included, using either ZIP (n = 80) or suture (n = 95). Total procedure time (local anesthetic to dressing application) and pocket closure time (fascial suture to dressing application) were compared. Pocket infections were defined as infections leading to CIED extraction or wound dehiscence requiring repeat procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using chi square test and Student's t test.

RESULTS

Pocket closure time and procedure time were significantly shorter for the ZIP group (14.9 ± 6.8 vs 20.1 ± 11.09 min, p = 0.0003) and (65.02 ± 30.4 vs 83.83 ± 40.3 min, p = 0.0008), respectively. No pocket infections occurred in the Zip group, while the suture group had 2:1 wound dehiscence and 1 pocket infection.

CONCLUSION

The ZIP device resulted in significantly shorter pocket closure and procedure times without increasing device pocket infections.

International survey of knowledge, attitudes, and practices of cardiologists regarding prevention and management of cardiac implantable electronic device infections

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can be life-saving. However, complications from CIED infection can be life-threatening, often requiring device removal. Despite publication of CIED infection management guidelines, there remains marked variation in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To better understand and quantify these differences, we conducted a multinational survey of practitioners of CIED management.

METHODS

An electronic survey was sent to Heart Rhythm Society members, spanning 70 countries across six continents. All responses were collected anonymously.

RESULTS

227 out of 3,600 (6.3%) responded to the survey. The majority of surveys were completed by practitioners from the United States (168; 68.3%) and 53.8% of these practiced in academic medical centers. The large majority (92.7%) of sites had protocols to ensure appropriate timing of prophylactic antibiotics. Superficial (incisional) site infections were treated with antibiotics alone 52.5% of the time (consistent with guidelines); in contrast, deep pocket infections were treated with antibiotics (with device removal) in accordance to guidelines only 37.4% of the time. Almost all providers (98.7%) were inclined to perform complete hardware removal in cases of CIED-related endocarditis. In contrast, 82.2% of survey participants suggested complete CIED system removal in patients with an occult Gram-positive bacteremia, 65.5% with occult Gram-negative bacteremia, and 59.3% with prolonged bacteremia due to a source other than CIED.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest wide variability in clinical practice in managing CIED infection with significant deviations from published guidelines. There is critical need to increase awareness and develop institutional protocols to ensure adherence with evidence-based guidelines to optimize outcomes.