Treatment and Prevention of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) Infections.

An expanded role for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in recent decades reflects an aging population and broader indications for devices, including both primary prevention and management of dysrhythmias. CIED infection is one of the most important device-related complications and has a major impact on mortality, quality of life, healthcare utilization, and cost. Unfortunately, the investigation and management of CIED infection remain complex, often necessitating complete and timely removal of the device and leads in order to eradicate the infection. In addition, the translation of knowledge from an extensive literature to a disparate group of medical practitioners has often been inadequate. This review of CIED infection management highlights the significant advances made during the past decade, including diagnostic criteria, advanced imaging, and next-generation sequencing for culture-negative cases or those in which uncertainty remains. We also outline the role and indication for powered lead extraction, the process of antibiotic choice and treatment duration, considerations related to the timing and location for reimplantation, and preimplantation risk stratification and associated interventions to reduce the risk of CIED infection.

L'élargissement du rôle des dispositifs électroniques cardiaques implantables (DECI) au cours des dernières décennies reflète le vieillissement de la population et les indications plus vastes des dispositifs, notamment dans la prévention primaire et la prise en charge des dysrythmies. Les infections liées aux DECI sont l'une des plus importantes complications liées aux dispositifs et ont des conséquences majeures sur la mortalité, la qualité de vie, l'utilisation et les coûts des soins de santé. Malheureusement, le dépistage et la prise en charge des infections liées aux DECI demeurent complexes et nécessitent souvent le retrait complet et rapide du dispositif et des sondes en vue d'éradiquer l'infection. De plus, l'application des connaissances issues d'une vaste littérature à un groupe disparate de médecins praticiens a souvent été inadéquate. La présente revue sur la prise en charge des infections liées aux DECI illustre les avancées importantes réalisées au cours de la dernière décennie, notamment les critères diagnostiques, l'imagerie avancée et le séquençage de prochaine génération des cas à culture négative ou de ceux pour lesquels des incertitudes demeurent. Nous avons aussi décrit le rôle et les indications d'extraction des sondes fonctionnelles, le processus du choix des antibiotiques et de la durée du traitement, les considérations relatives au moment et au lieu de la réimplantation, et la stratification du risque en préimplantation et les interventions associées afin de réduire le risque d'infections liées aux DECI.

Factors influencing the decision of older adults to be assessed for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: An exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the recommended therapy for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk and likely to derive benefit. Multimodality and multidisciplinary assessment is required for the heart team to determine eligibility for TAVI in a primarily older population. Little is known about patients' motivation and perspectives on making the decision to undergo the complex assessment. AIMS: To explore factors influencing patients' decision making to undergo TAVI eligibility assessment to inform practice, programme development, health policy and future research. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative approach was used. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 patients at the time of their referral for assessment to a quaternary cardiac and high volume TAVI centre. RESULTS: Multiple, intersecting factors that included biomedical, functional, social and environmental considerations influenced patients' decision. The six distinct factors were symptom burden, participants' perception as 'experienced' patients, expectations of benefit and risks, healthcare system and informal support, logistical barriers and facilitators, and obligations and responsibilities. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to undergo TAVI eligibility assessment is multifaceted and complex. Programmatic processes of care must be in place to facilitate appropriate and patient-centered decision making and access to TAVI. Strategies are required to mitigate the risks associated with the rapid deterioration of severe aortic stenosis, address patient and referring physicians' education needs, and provide individualised care and equitable access. Future research must focus on patients' experiences throughout the trajectory of TAVI care.

Exploring changes in functional status while waiting for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Aortic stenosis (AS) is a structural heart disease primarily associated with ageing. For people with multiple co-morbidities, surgical treatment may not be a safe or feasible option. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is indicated for patients with symptomatic AS who are at excessive risk for surgical valve replacement and are likely to derive significant benefit. Functional status can deteriorate during the time between referral and procedure because of the rapid disease progression of severe AS and varying wait-times for treatment in Canada. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to examine changes in functional status between time of eligibility assessment and TAVI procedure date. METHODS: An exploratory prospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate changes in functional status including gait speed, frailty scores and cognitive status. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients participated in the study with median age 81 years. Functional status declined between time of eligibility assessment and time of TAVI: gait speed increased by an average of 0.53 s (standard deviation (SD)=1.0, p=0.01) and frailty scores increased by an average of 0.31 (SD=0.64, p=0.01). Patients waiting longer than six weeks for TAVI had a larger decline in gait speed than patients waiting less than six weeks (p=0.02). Patients living alone had a larger increase in frailty scores compared to patients living with another adult (p=0.05). CONCLUSION: Older adults with life-limiting AS are vulnerable to changes in functional status. In the absence of TAVI wait-time benchmarks, findings may be used to facilitate individualized care and management strategies and inform health-care policy.