Literature DB >> 25926473

Risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic device infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Konstantinos A Polyzos1, Athanasios A Konstantelias2, Matthew E Falagas3.   

Abstract

Infectious complications after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation are increasing over time and are associated with substantial mortality and healthcare costs. The aim of this study was to systematically summarize the literature on risk factors for infection after pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation. Electronic searches (up to January 2014) were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Sixty studies (21 prospective, 9 case-control, and 30 retrospective cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria. The average device infection rate was 1-1.3%. In the meta-analysis, significant host-related risk factors for infection included diabetes mellitus (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval] = 2.08 [1.62-2.67]), end-stage renal disease (OR = 8.73 [3.42-22.31]), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 2.95 [1.78-4.90]), corticosteroid use (OR = 3.44 [1.62-7.32]), history of the previous device infection (OR = 7.84 [1.94-31.60]), renal insufficiency (OR = 3.02 [1.38-6.64]), malignancy (OR = 2.23 [1.26-3.95]), heart failure (OR = 1.65 [1.14-2.39]), pre-procedural fever (OR = 4.27 [1.13-16.12]), anticoagulant drug use (OR = 1.59 [1.01-2.48]), and skin disorders (OR = 2.46 [1.04-5.80]). Regarding procedure-related factors, post-operative haematoma (OR = 8.46 [4.01-17.86]), reintervention for lead dislodgement (OR = 6.37 [2.93-13.82]), device replacement/revision (OR = 1.98 [1.46-2.70]), lack of antibiotic prophylaxis (OR = 0.32 [0.18-0.55]), temporary pacing (OR = 2.31 [1.36-3.92]), inexperienced operator (OR = 2.85 [1.23-6.58]), and procedure duration (weighted mean difference = 9.89 [0.52-19.25]) were all predictors of CIED infection. Among device-related characteristics, abdominal pocket (OR = 4.01 [2.48-6.49]), epicardial leads (OR = 8.09 [3.46-18.92]), positioning of two or more leads (OR = 2.02 [1.11-3.69]), and dual-chamber systems (OR = 1.45 [1.02-2.05]) predisposed to device infection. This systematic review on risk factors for CIED infection may contribute to developing better infection control strategies for high-risk patients and can also help risk assessment in the management of device revisions. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
© The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Defibrillator; Infection; Pacemaker; Predictors; Resynchronization; Risk factors

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25926473     DOI: 10.1093/europace/euv053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Europace        ISSN: 1099-5129            Impact factor:   5.214


  83 in total

1.  A meta-analysis of antibacterial envelope use in prevention of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection.

Authors:  Sajid Ali; Yousuf Kanjwal; Steven R Bruhl; Mohammed Alo; Mohammed Taleb; Syed S Ali; Ameer Kabour; Owais Khawaja
Journal:  Ther Adv Infect Dis       Date:  2017-05-01

2.  Repeated procedures at the generator pocket are a determinant of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infection.

Authors:  Eduardo Arana-Rueda; Alonso Pedrote; Manuel Frutos-López; Juan Acosta; Beatriz Jauregui; Lorena García-Riesco; Álvaro Arce-León; Federico Gómez-Pulido; Juan A Sánchez-Brotons; Encarnación Gutiérrez-Carretero; Arístides de Alarcón-González
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 2.882

3.  The 18-fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission-tomography/computed tomography-guided treatment of prosthetic valve endocarditis.

Authors:  Grzegorz Sławiński; Ewa Lewicka; Maciej Kempa; Szymon Budrejko; Alicja Dąbrowska-Kugacka; Grzegorz Romanowicz; Grzegorz Raczak
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 2.737

Review 4.  Comparing the safety of subcutaneous versus transvenous ICDs: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Li Su; Jia Guo; Yingqun Hao; Hong Tan
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 1.900

5.  Evaluation of common suturing techniques to secure implantable cardiac electronic device leads: Which strategy best reduces the lead dislodgement risk?

Authors:  Saman Rezazadeh; Samuel Wang; Jacques Rizkallah
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 2.089

6.  The Diagnosis and Treatment of Pacemaker-Associated Infection.

Authors:  Michael Döring; Sergio Richter; Gerhard Hindricks
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 5.594

7.  Efficacy of postoperative prophylactic antibiotics in reducing permanent pacemaker infections.

Authors:  Wen-Huang Lee; Ting-Chun Huang; Li-Jen Lin; Po-Tseng Lee; Chih-Chan Lin; Cheng-Han Lee; Ting-Hsing Chao; Yi-Heng Li; Ju-Yi Chen
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 2.882

8.  Real-world effectiveness of infection prevention interventions for reducing procedure-related cardiac device infections: Insights from the veterans affairs clinical assessment reporting and tracking program.

Authors:  Archana Asundi; Maggie Stanislawski; Payal Mehta; Anna E Baron; Hillary J Mull; P Michael Ho; Peter J Zimetbaum; Kalpana Gupta; Westyn Branch-Elliman
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 3.254

Review 9.  [Hypersensitivity reactions to implantable cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators].

Authors:  B Kreft
Journal:  Hautarzt       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 0.751

10.  New Insights into Predictors of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection.

Authors:  Hossein Sadeghi; Abolfath Alizadehdiz; Amirfarjam Fazelifar; Zahra Emkanjoo; Majid Haghjoo
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  2018-06-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.