Mortality after transvenous lead extraction: A risk prediction model for sustainable care delivery.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has become a pivotal part of a comprehensive lead management strategy, dealing with a continuously increasing demand. Nonetheless, the literature about the long-term impact of TLE on survivals is still lacking. Given these knowledge gaps, the aim of our study was to analyse very long-term mortality in patients undergoing TLE in public health perspective. METHODS: This prospective, single-centre, observational study enrolled consecutive patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) who underwent TLE, from January 2005 to January 2021. The main goal was to establish the independent predictors of very long-term mortality after TLE. We also aimed at assessing procedural and hospitalization-related costs. RESULTS: We enrolled 435 patients (mean age 70 ± 12 years, with mean lead dwelling time 6.8 ± 16.7 years), with prevalent infective indication to TLE (92%). Initial success of TLE was achieved in 98% of population. After a median follow-up of 4.5 years (range: 1 month-15.5 years), 150 of the 435 enrolled patients (34%) died. At multivariate analysis, death was predicted by: age (≥77 years, OR: 2.55, CI: 1.8-3.6, p < 0.001), chronic kidney disease (CKD) defined as severe reduction of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 , OR: 1.75, CI: 1.24-2.4, p = 0.001) and systolic dysfunction assessed before TLE defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%, OR: 1.78, CI 1.26-2.5, p = 0.001. Mean extraction cost was €5011 per patient without reimplantation and €6336 per patient with reimplantation respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified three predictors of long-term mortality in a high-risk cohort of patients with a cardiac device infection, undergoing successful TLE. The future development of a mortality risk score before might impact on public health strategy.

COVID-19 seroprevalence among healthcare workers of a large COVID Hospital in Rome reveals strengths and limits of two different serological tests

In several hospitals worldwide, healthcare workers are currently at the forefront against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli (FPG) IRCCS has been enlisted as a COVID hospital, healthcare workers deployed to COVID wards were separated from those with limited or no exposure, whereas administrative staff was destined to work-from-home. Between June 4 and July 3 2020, an investigation was carried out to evaluate seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies among employees of the FPG using point-of-care (POC) and venous blood tests. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were determined with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on nasal/oropharyngeal swabs as gold standard. Four thousand, seven hundred seventy-seven participants were enrolled. Seroprevalence was 3.66% using the POC test and 1.19% using venous blood test, with a significant difference between the two (p < 0.05). POC sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 63.64% (95% confidence interval (CI): 62.20% to 65.04%) and 96.64% (95% CI: 96.05% to 97.13%), while those of the venous blood test were, respectively, 78.79% (95% CI: 77.58% to 79.94%) and 99.36% (95% CI: 99.07% to 99.55%). Among low-risk population, point-of-cares predictive values were 58.33% (positive) and 98.23% (negative) whereas venous blood tests were 92.86% (positive) and 98.53% (negative). In conclusion, point-of-care tests have low diagnostic accuracy, while venous blood tests seem to show an overall poor reliability.