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.

A nurse-led implantable loop recorder service is safe and cost effective.

INTRODUCTION: Implantable loop recorders (ILR) are predominantly implanted by cardiologists in the catheter laboratory. We developed a nurse-delivered service for the implantation of LINQ (Medtronic; Minnesota) ILRs in the outpatient setting. This study compared the safety and cost-effectiveness of the introduction of this nurse-delivered ILR service with contemporaneous physician-led procedures. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing an ILR at our institution between 1st July 2016 and 4th June 2018 were included. Data were prospectively entered into a computerized database, which was retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 475 patients underwent ILR implantation, 271 (57%) of these were implanted by physicians in the catheter laboratory and 204 (43%) by nurses in the outpatient setting. Six complications occurred in physician-implants and two in nurse-implants (P = .3). Procedural time for physician-implants (13.4 ± 8.0 minutes) and nurse-implants (14.2 ± 10.1 minutes) were comparable (P = .98). The procedural cost was estimated as £576.02 for physician-implants against £279.95 with nurse-implants, equating to a 57.3% cost reduction. In our center, the total cost of ILR implantation in the catheter laboratory by physicians was £10 513.13 p.a. vs £6661.55 p.a. with a nurse-delivered model. When overheads for running, cleaning, and maintaining were accounted for, we estimated a saving of £68 685.75 was performed by moving to a nurse-delivered model for ILR implants. Over 133 catheter laboratory and implanting physician hours were saved and utilized for other more complex procedures. CONCLUSION: ILR implantation in the outpatient setting by suitably trained nurses is safe and leads to significant financial savings.