RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial envelopes reduce the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infections, but their cost restricts routine use in the United Kingdom. Risk scoring could help to identify which patients would most benefit from this technology. METHODS: A novel risk score (BLISTER [Blood results, Long procedure time, Immunosuppressed, Sixty years old (or younger), Type of procedure, Early re-intervention, Repeat procedure]) was derived from multivariate analysis of factors associated with cardiac implantable electronic device infection. Diagnostic utility was assessed against the existing PADIT score (Prior procedure, Age, Depressed renal function, Immunocompromised, Type of procedure) in both standard and high-risk external validation cohorts, and cost-utility models examined different BLISTER and PADIT score thresholds for TYRX (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN) antimicrobial envelope allocation. RESULTS: In a derivation cohort (n=7383), cardiac implantable electronic device infection occurred in 59 individuals within 12 months of a procedure (event rate, 0.8%). In addition to the PADIT score constituents, lead extraction (hazard ratio, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.9-6.1]; P<0.0001), C-reactive protein >50 mg/L (hazard ratio, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.4-6.4]; P=0.005), reintervention within 2 years (hazard ratio, 10.1 [95% CI, 5.6-17.9]; P<0.0001), and top-quartile procedure duration (hazard ratio, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.6-4.1]; P=0.001) were independent predictors of infection. The BLISTER score demonstrated superior discriminative performance versus PADIT in the standard risk (n=2854, event rate: 0.8%, area under the curve, 0.82 versus 0.71; P=0.001) and high-risk validation cohorts (n=1961, event rate: 2.0%, area under the curve, 0.77 versus 0.69; P=0.001), and in all patients (n=12â 198, event rate: 1%, area under the curve, 0.8 versus 0.75, P=0.002). In decision-analytic modeling, the optimum scenario assigned antimicrobial envelopes to patients with BLISTER scores ≥6 (10.8%), delivering a significant reduction in infections (relative risk reduction, 30%; P=0.036) within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-utility thresholds (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £18â 446). CONCLUSIONS: The BLISTER score (https://qxmd.com/calculate/calculator_876/the-blister-score-for-cied-infection) was a valid predictor of cardiac implantable electronic device infection, and could facilitate cost-effective antimicrobial envelope allocation to high-risk patients.
Assuntos
Anti-Infecciosos , Desfibriladores Implantáveis , Cardiopatias , Marca-Passo Artificial , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Desfibriladores Implantáveis/efeitos adversos , Cardiopatias/complicações , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Fatores de Risco , Eletrônica , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/diagnóstico , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/epidemiologia , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/prevenção & controle , Marca-Passo Artificial/efeitos adversosAssuntos
COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Fortalecimento Institucional/organização & administração , Administração Hospitalar/métodos , Arquitetura Hospitalar/métodos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/organização & administração , Inovação Organizacional , Capacidade de Resposta ante Emergências/organização & administração , Humanos , Londres , Seleção de Pessoal/normas , Recursos Humanos em Hospital/normas , SARS-CoV-2 , Medicina EstatalRESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pre-participation athlete screening has led to the referral of asymptomatic athletes with a prolonged QT interval warranting their evaluation for long QT syndrome (LQTS). Establishing a diagnosis of LQTS can be difficult, particularly in asymptomatic athletes presenting with a prolonged QTc < 500 ms. This review examines the evaluatory pathway to ascertain the common pitfalls leading to mis- or overdiagnosis. We discuss the advanced ECG-based tools and consider their application in the diagnostic process. RECENT FINDINGS: Critical analysis of the ECG, symptom, and pedigree analysis has established value but relies on experienced interpretation. Protocolisation of the former has effectively reduced error. Exercise recovery ECG testing has demonstrated diagnostic value and provocation testing, reliant on QT hysteresis in LQTS, have shown reasonable sensitivity. Although it is becoming more established in experienced centres, its diagnostic value relies on effective risk stratification and subject selection. LQTS is a rare condition and the precision of any available test is greatly diluted if pre-test probability is low. Clinical and familial evaluation and exercise ECG testing are the foundation of the evaluatory process following referral. Adjunctive tests may have high sensitivity for LQTS but rely on high pre-test probability. Several pitfalls have been identified that can lead to misdiagnosis and thus informed evaluation at an experienced specialist centre is appropriate.