18F-FDG PET/CT now endorsed by guidelines across all types of CIED infection: Evidence limited but growing

Brucella cardiac implantable electronic device infection: A single-center case series

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including implantable cardiac defibrillators, pacemakers, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, are lifesaving. However, device infections can lead to morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to describe the outcome of Brucella CIED infections treated at our center, and to identify risk factors for Brucella infection in patients with CIEDs. Study Settings: Single-center study, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, KSA.

METHODS

This case series included all Brucella-related CIED infections treated at a tertiary care center between 2009 and 2020. Data on patient demographics, clinical manifestations, predisposing factors, microbiology, treatment regimens, and outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients met the Brucella CIED infection criteria. The mean age was 62.2 years, and 80% were males. Common comorbidities included hypertension (73%), diabetes mellitus (67%), ischemic heart disease (47%), and chronic kidney disease (60%). The mean time to infection following the device implantation was 4.8 years (range: 5 months to 13 years). Fever was detected in 53% of patients, device site swelling in 47%, purulent discharge in 33%, and pain in 27%. The blood culture and serology results were positive in 73% and 80% of patients, respectively. All patients were treated with antibiotics, and the infected device was removed. Seven (46.6%) patients underwent reimplantation with a new device. One patient with dual Brucella and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus infection died, and the other 14 patients recovered, with no recurrent infections reported to date.

CONCLUSION

Brucella should be considered in CIED infections, particularly in endemic areas. Proper treatment and device removal are essential for good outcomes.

A narrative review of diagnosis of infective endocarditis-imaging methods and comparison

The profile of infective endocarditis (IE) has changed over the past few decades. The modified Duke’s criteria is currently employed for diagnosis of IE. Emphasis on imaging modalities however, have been increasing due to the variety of presenting symptoms leading to diagnostic conundrums. This wide range of diagnostic tools must be adapted to permit localization of the infectious field which may involve multiple valves on either side of the heart. The availability of such diagnostic tools is also variable in different centres. The use of echocardiography has long been the default position, however the lack of specificity and sensitivity especially in prosthetic valve endocarditis has been highlighted throughout the literature. We therefore aimed to look at the different imaging modalities available and the strengths and weaknesses of each of these modalities to enhance the diagnostic yield and allow timely intervention for this condition. We highlight the role of the different forms of echocardiography, multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT), Nuclear Medicine, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and identify the special indications such as right sided infective endocarditis (RSIE) and cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) endocarditis. Input from a specialist heart team is essential to ensure timely diagnosis and care are afforded. The role of alternative imaging techniques such as nuclear medicine in determining timing of cardiac surgery should be evaluated further by randomised trials.