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.

Procedural and quality assessment data on catheter ablation for fascicular ventricular tachycardia.

Data presented in this article are supplementary materials to our article entitled "Catheter Ablation for Fascicular Ventricular Tachycardia: A Systematic review" (Creta et al., 2018). The current article provides additional procedural data regarding the catheter ablation for fascicular ventricular tachycardia (FVT) performed in the patients enrolled in our analysis. Furthermore, we provide data regarding the quality assessment of the studies included in our systematic review.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of left ventricular endocardial pacing in advanced heart failure: Clinically efficacious but at what cost?

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization using a left ventricular (LV) epicardial lead placed in the coronary sinus is now routinely used in the management of heart failure patients. LV endocardial pacing is an alternative when this is not feasible, with outcomes data sparse. OBJECTIVE: To review the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of endocardial LV pacing via meta-analysis. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and COCHRANE databases with the search term "endocardial biventricular pacing" or "endocardial cardiac resynchronization" or "left ventricular endocardial" or "endocardial left ventricular." Comparisons of pre-and post-QRS width, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification was performed, and mean differences (and respective 95% confidence interval [CI]) applied as a measurement of treatment effect. RESULTS: Fifteen studies, including 362 patients, were selected. During a mean follow-up of 40 ± 24.5 months, death occurred in 72 patients (11 per 100 patient-years). Significant improvements in LVEF (mean difference 7.9%, 95% CI 5-10%, P < 0.0001; I2  = 73%), QRS width (mean difference: -41% 95% -75 to -7%; P < 0.0001; I2  = 94%), and NYHA class (mean difference: -1.06, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.9, P < 0.0001; I2  = 60%), (all P < 0.0001) occurred. Stroke rate was 3.3-4.2 per 100 patient-years, which is higher than equivalent heart failure trial populations and recent meta-analysis that included small case series. CONCLUSION: LV endocardial lead implantation is a potentially efficacious alternative to CS lead placement, but preliminary data suggest a potentially higher risk of stroke during follow-up when compared to the expected incidence of stroke in similar cohorts of patients.