Predictors of infection after "de novo" cardiac electronic device implantation

Ultrasound-Guided Venous Axillary Access Versus Standard Fluoroscopic Technique for Cardiac Lead Implantation: ZEROFLUOROAXI Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Axillary vein puncture (AVP) and cephalic vein surgical cutdown are recommended in international guidelines because of their low risk of pneumothorax and chronic lead complications. Directly visualizing and puncturing the axillary vein under ultrasound guidance reduces radiation exposure, provides direct needle visualization, and lowers periprocedural complications. Our hypothesis is that ultrasound-guided axillary access is safer and more feasible than the standard fluoroscopic technique.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided axillary venous access during cardiac lead implantation for pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations.

METHODS

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either axillary venous access under fluoroscopic guidance or ultrasound-guided axillary venous access. The composite outcome, including pneumothorax, hemothorax, inadvertent arterial puncture, pocket hematoma, pocket infection, lead dislodgement, and death, was evaluated 30 days after implantation.

RESULTS

We randomized 270 patients into 2 groups: the standard group for fluoroguided AVP (n = 134) and the experimental group for ultrasound-guided AVP (n = 136). No disparities in baseline characteristics were observed between the groups. The median age of the patients was 81 years, with women comprising 41% of the population. The majority of patients received single- and dual-chamber PMs (87% vs 88%; P = 1.00), and slightly over 10% in both groups received ICDs (13% vs 12%; P = 0.85). In total, we placed 357 leads in PMs and 48 leads in ICDs. Among these, 295 leads were inserted via axillary vein access and 110 via cephalic vein access. Notably, the subclavian vein was never used as a vascular access. The composite outcome was lower in the ultrasound group according to intention-to-treat analysis (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.31-0.99; P = 0.034). The main difference within the composite outcome was the lower incidence of inadvertent axillary arterial puncture in the experimental group (17% vs 6%; P = 0.004). The ultrasound group also exhibited lower total procedural x-ray exposure (10,344 μGy × cm2 vs 7,119 μGy × cm2; P = 0.002) while achieving the same rate of success at the first attempt (61% vs 69%; P = 0.375).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound-guided AVP is safer than the fluoroscopy-guided approach because it achieves the same rate of acute success while maintaining low total procedural radiation exposure. Ultrasound AVP should be considered the optimal venous access method for cardiac lead implantation. (Ultrasound Guided Axillary Access vs Standard Fluoroscopic Technique for Cardiac Lead Implantation [ZEROFLUOROAXI]; NCT05101720).

Risk factors for Gram-negative bacterial infection of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: multicentre observational study (CarDINe Study)

BACKGROUND

Infections of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) are mainly due to Gram-positive bacteria (GPB). Data about Gram-negative bacteria CIED (GNB-CIED) infections are limited. This study aimed to investigate risk factors, clinical and diagnostic characteristics, and outcome of patients with GNB-CIED.

METHODS

A multicentre, international, retrospective, case-control-control study was performed on patients undergoing CIED implantation from 2015 to 2019 in 17 centres across Europe. For each patient diagnosed with GNB-CIED, one matching control with GPB-CIED infection and two matching controls without infection were selected.

RESULTS

A total of 236 patients were enrolled: 59 with GNB-CIED infection, 59 with GPB-CIED infection and 118 without infection. No between-group differences were found regarding clinical presentation, diagnostic and therapeutic management. A trend toward a higher rate of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) positivity was observed among patients with GNB than in those with GPB-CIED infection (85.7% vs. 66.7%; P = 0.208). Risk factors for GNB-CIED infection were Charlson Comorbidity Index Score (relative risk reduction, RRR = 1.211; P = 0.011), obesity (RRR = 5.122; P = 0.008), ventricular-pacing ventricular-sensing inhibited-response pacemaker implantation (RRR = 3.027; P = 0.006) and right subclavian vein site of implantation (RRR = 5.014; P = 0.004). At 180-day survival analysis, GNB-CIED infection was associated with increased mortality risk (HR = 1.842; P = 0.067).

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity, high number of comorbidities and right subclavian vein implantation site were associated with increased risk of GNB-CIED infection. A prompt therapeutic intervention that may be guided using FDG PET/CT is suggested in patients with GNB-CIED infection, considering the poorer outcome observed in this group.

Risk Scores for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection: Which One to Believe In?

Infections are important complications of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), with a high prognostic impact. Several risk factors for CIED infections are known. Different studies have been published proposing different risk scores, in order to preoperatively assess the individual likelihood of developing a CIED infection. Among the different scores, large heterogeneity exists and there is no consensus or convergence on a single score finding large applicability in global practice. The aim of this review is to comprehensively present and analyze all the available risk scores for CIED infection, with particular regard to the evidence of comparison studies.

Antibiotic-Eluting Envelopes for the Prevention of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Rationale, Efficacy, and Cost-Effectiveness

Infections related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite optimal use of antimicrobials and other preventive strategies, the incidence of CIED infections is increasing over time leading to considerable costs to the healthcare systems. Recently, antibiotic-eluting envelopes (AEEs) have been introduced as a promising technology to prevent CIED infections. This review will address the current evidence on stratification of CIED infection risk, present the rationale behind AEE, and summarize the currently available evidence for CIED infection prevention as well as demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of this novel technology.

Incidence and Predictors of Infections and All-Cause Death in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: The Italian Nationwide RI-AIAC Registry

Background: The incidence of infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patient outcomes are not fully known. Aim: To provide a contemporary assessment of the risk of CIEDs infection and associated clinical outcomes. Methods: In Italy, 18 centres enrolled all consecutive patients undergoing a CIED procedure and entered a 12-months follow-up. CIED infections, as well as a composite clinical event of infection or all-cause death were recorded. Results: A total of 2675 patients (64.3% male, age 78 (70–84)) were enrolled. During follow up 28 (1.1%) CIED infections and 132 (5%) deaths, with 152 (5.7%) composite clinical events were observed. At a multivariate analysis, the type of procedure (revision/upgrading/reimplantation) (OR: 4.08, 95% CI: 1.38–12.08) and diabetes (OR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.02–4.84) were found as main clinical factors associated to CIED infection. Both the PADIT score and the RI-AIAC Infection score were significantly associated with CIED infections, with the RI-AIAC infection score showing the strongest association (OR: 2.38, 95% CI: 1.60–3.55 for each point), with a c-index = 0.64 (0.52–0.75), p = 0.015. Regarding the occurrence of composite clinical events, the Kolek score, the Shariff score and the RI-AIAC Event score all predicted the outcome, with an AUC for the RI-AIAC Event score equal to 0.67 (0.63−0.71) p < 0.001. Conclusions: In this Italian nationwide cohort of patients, while the incidence of CIED infections was substantially low, the rate of the composite clinical outcome of infection or all-cause death was quite high and associated with several clinical factors depicting a more impaired clinical status.

Burden of disease and costs of infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices

INTRODUCTION

Infections are complications of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) procedures, associated with high mortality (20-25% at 1 year), long hospitalizations (23-30 days), and high costs for health-care systems (often higher than 30.000 €). The incidence rates are around 1-4%. Prevention strategies appear to be the best approach for minimizing the occurrence of CIED infections, but in real-world, the recommendations for the best practices are not always followed. Among the recommended preventive measures, the antibacterial envelope has proven to be effective in reducing CIED-related infections.

AREAS COVERED

Published studies investigate the role of antibacterial envelopes in infection prevention and the use of infection risk scores to select high-risk patients undergoing CIED implantation/replacement who can benefit from additional preventive measures.

EXPERT OPINION

A proficient selection of the best candidates for the antibacterial envelope can be the basis for reducing the healthcare system's costs, in line with the principles of cost-effectiveness. Risk scores have been developed to select patients at high risk of CIED infections and their use appears simple and more complete than individual factors alone. Among them, the PADIT score seems to be effective in selecting patients eligible for antibacterial envelope insertion, with a good cost-effectiveness profile.

Antibiotic prophylaxis based on individual infective risk stratification in cardiac implantable electronic device: the PRACTICE study

Aims

In patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) intervention, routine pre-procedure antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended. A more powerful antibiotic protocol has been suggested in patients at high risk of infection. Stratification of individual infective risk could guide the prophylaxis before CIED procedure.

Methods and results

Patients undergoing CIED surgery were stratified according to the Shariff score in low and high infective risk. Patients in the ‘low-risk’ group were treated with only two antibiotic administrations while patients in the ‘high-risk’ group were treated with a prolonged 9-day protocol, according to renal function and allergies. We followed-up patients for 250 days with clinical outpatient visit and electronic control of the CIED. As primary endpoint, we evaluated CIED-related infections. A total of 937 consecutive patients were enrolled, of whom 735 were stratified in the ‘low-risk’ group and 202 in the ‘high-risk’ group. Despite different risk profiles, CIED-related infection rate at 250 days was similar in the two groups (8/735 in ‘low risk’ vs. 4/202 in ‘high risk’, P = 0.32). At multivariate analysis, active neoplasia, haematoma, and reintervention were independently associated with CIED-related infection (HR 5.54, 10.77, and 12.15, respectively).

Conclusion

In a large cohort of patients undergoing CIED procedure, an antibiotic prophylaxis based on individual stratification of infective risk resulted in similar rate of infection between groups at high and low risk of CIED-related infection.

Antibiotic eluting envelopes: evidence, technology, and defining high-risk populations

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) are effective and important components of modern cardiovascular care. Despite the dramatic improvements in the functionality and reliability of these devices, over time patients are at risk for developing several morbidities, the most feared of which are local and systemic infections. Despite significant financial investment and aggressive therapy with hospitalization, intravenous antibiotics, and transvenous lead extraction, the outcomes include a 1-year mortality rate as high as 25%. This risk of infection has increased over time, likely due to the increased complexity of the surgical interventions required to insert and replace these devices. The only way to reduce this morbidity and mortality is to prevent these infections, and other than preoperative antibiotics, there were little data supporting effective therapy until the WRAP-IT trial provided randomized data showing that pocket infections can be reduced by 60% at 12 months and major CIED infections reduced by 40% at 1 year with the use of the absorbable antibiotic eluting envelope in patient CIED procedures at high risk of infection. Not all CIED procedures are at high risk of infection and justify the use of the envelope, but cost-effectiveness data support the use of the antibiotic envelope particularly in patients with defibrillator replacements, revisions, and upgrades, such as to a resynchronization device and in patients with prior CIED infection, history of immunocompromise, two or more prior procedures, or a history of renal dysfunction.

Prevention of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: guidelines and conventional prophylaxis

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are potentially life-saving treatments for several cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Despite dissemination of recommended strategies for prevention of device infections, such as administration of antibiotics before implantation, infection rates continue to rise resulting in escalating health care costs. New trials conveying important steps for better prevention of device infection and an EHRA consensus paper were recently published. This document will review the role of various preventive measures for CIED infection, emphasizing the importance of adhering to published recommendations. The document aims to provide guidance on how to prevent CIED infections in clinical practice by considering modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors that may be present pre-, peri-, and/or post-procedure.