The BLISTER Score: A Novel, Externally Validated Tool for Predicting Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections, and Its Cost-Utility Implications for Antimicrobial Envelope Use.

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=12 198, 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, £18 446). 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.

Outcomes and costs of left atrial appendage closure from randomized controlled trial and real-world experience relative to oral anticoagulation.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to analyse randomized controlled study and real-world outcomes of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) undergoing left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the Watchman device and to compare costs with available antithrombotic therapies. METHODS AND RESULTS: Registry data of LAAC from two centres were prospectively collected from 110 patients with NVAF at risk of stroke, suitable and unsuitable for long-term anticoagulation (age 71.3 ± 9.2 years, CHADS2 2.8 ± 1.2, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.5 ± 1.6, and HAS-BLED 3.8 ± 1.1). Outcomes from PROTECT AF and registry study LAAC were compared with warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, aspirin, and no treatment using a network meta-analysis. Costs were estimated over a 10-year horizon. Uncertainty was assessed using sensitivity analyses. The procedural success rate was 92% (103/112). Follow-up was 24.1 ± 4.6 months, during which annual rates of stroke, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality were 0.9% (2/223 patient-years), 0.9% (2/223 patient-years), and 1.8% (4/223 patient-years), respectively. Anticoagulant therapy was successfully stopped in 91.2% (93/102) of implanted patients by 12 months. Registry study LAAC stroke and major bleeding rates were significantly lower than PROTECT AF results: mean absolute difference of stroke, 0.89% (P = 0.02) and major bleeding, 5.48% (P < 0.001). Left atrial appendage closure achieved cost parity between 4.9 years vs. dabigatran 110 mg and 8.4 years vs. warfarin. At 10 years, LAAC was cost-saving against all therapies (range £1162-£7194). CONCLUSION: Left atrial appendage closure in NVAF in a real-world setting may result in lower stroke and major bleeding rates than reported in LAAC clinical trials. Left atrial appendage closure in both settings achieves cost parity in a relatively short period of time and may offer substantial savings compared with current therapies. Savings are most pronounced among higher risk patients and those unsuitable for anticoagulation.