Cost-Effectiveness of Antibiotic-Eluting Envelope for Prevention of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Use of an antibiotic-eluting envelope (AEE) during cardiac implantable electronic device procedures reduces infection risk but increases procedural costs. We aim to estimate the cost-effectiveness of AEE use during cardiac implantable electronic device procedures among patients with heart failure. METHODS: A state-transition cohort model of heart failure patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device implantation or generator replacement was developed with input parameters estimated from randomized trials, registries, surveys, and claims data. Effectiveness was estimated from the World-Wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial. AEE was assumed to cost $953 per unit. The model projected mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AEE use compared with usual care from a US healthcare sector perspective over a lifetime horizon. We assumed a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, AEE use in initial implantations produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $112 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (39% probability of being cost-effective). In generator replacement procedures, AEE use produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $54 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (84% probability of being cost-effective). Results were sensitive to the underlying rate of infection, cost of the AEE, and durability of AEE effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Universal AEE use for cardiac implantable electronic device procedures in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is unlikely to be cost-effective, reinforcing the need for individualized risk assessment to guide uptake of the AEE in clinical practice. Selective use in patients at increased risk of infection, such as those undergoing generator replacement procedures, is more likely to meet health system value benchmarks.

Culturing Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Number of Samples, Growth Duration, and Organisms.

BACKGROUND: Owing to the difficulty isolating microorganisms in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), current guidelines recommend that 3-5 intraoperative samples be cultured and maintained for 3-14 days. We investigated (1) the optimal number of culture samples and growth duration to diagnose PJI and (2) the microbiology profile at our institution. METHODS: A retrospective review of 711 patients (329 hips, 382 knees) with PJI that met Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria from 2000 to 2014 was performed. Two thousand two hundred ninety aerobic and anaerobic cultures were analyzed. A manual chart review collected demographic, surgical, and microbiological data. Microbiology profiles were trended. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: Obtaining 5 samples provided the greatest yield positive cultures for diagnosing PJI. The percentage of positive cultures overall was 62.6% and stratified by organism type: antibiotic resistant (80.0%), Staphylococcus aureus (76.0%), gram negative (58.9%), Pseudomonas (52.0%), variant PJI organisms (28.2%), Propionibacterium acnes (20.0%), and Escherichia coli (8.0%). Although most organisms were cultured in 5 days or less, 10.8 days were needed for Propionibacterium acnes, 6.6 for variant PJI organisms, and 5.2 for coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. At 3 days, only 42.2% of cultures turned positive compared with 95.0% at 8 days. There was a significant decrease in time in gram-positive PJIs and an increase in culture-negative PJIs. CONCLUSION: The optimal number of cultures and growth duration depended on the type of organism. This study provides evidence that 5 samples should be obtained and held for at least 8 days given that the type of organisms is likely to be unknown at the time of surgery.

Midterm Survivorship and Complications of Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients With Dwarfism.

BACKGROUND: Dwarfism is associated with skeletal dysplasias and joint deformities that frequently result in osteoarthritis requiring treatment with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). These surgeries can be challenging because of alignment deformities, poor bone stock, and smaller components. This study aims to compare TKA implant survivorship and complications between dwarf and nondwarf patients. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed from 1997-2014 evaluating 115 TKAs in patients under the height threshold of 147.32 cm. This cohort was compared with 164 patients of normal height. Medical records were reviewed for demographics, surgical characteristics, and outcomes. All cases had 2-year minimum follow-up. RESULTS: The revision rate was 8.7% in dwarfs compared with 3.7% in controls (P = .08). The 2-, 5-, and 10-year implant survivorship in dwarfs was 96.4%, 92.5%, and 90.2%, respectively; and 96.6%, 95.6%, and 94.8% for controls, respectively (P = .24). Dwarfs underwent significantly more manipulations for arthrofibrosis (P = .002). There was greater femoral (17.4% vs 2.1%, P < .01) and tibial (6.5% vs 2.7%, P < .01) component overhang in dwarfs compared with controls. CONCLUSION: Despite a 2-fold increase in the revision rate of the dwarf cohort, the midterm survivorship is comparable between the dwarf and nondwarf patients. However, dwarfs were more likely to become stiff and undergo manipulation; the increased propensity for stiffness may be associated with oversized components, as evidenced by greater component overhang. Surgeons should be aware of this increased risk and may consider using smaller or customized implants to account for the morphological differences in this patient population.

Survivorship and complications of total hip arthroplasty in patients with dwarfism.

BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common procedure used to treat bony hip deformities and skeletal dysplasia in dwarfism. These surgeries are often more difficult than conventional THA as they may involve malformed joints and poor bone quality, and may require smaller prostheses. This study aims to investigate whether implant survivorship and revision rates vary among patients with and without dwarfism undergoing THA. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed for 102 THAs completed between 1997 and 2014 in patients under the height threshold of 147.32 cm. This cohort was matched 1:1.5 with patients of normal height with respect to age, gender, year of surgery, and Charlson comorbidities. All cases had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. A chart review was performed to identify patient and surgical characteristics, including outcomes. Radiographs were assessed for deformity, loosening, and periprosthetic fractures among other factors. RESULTS: The 2-, 5-, and 10-year survivorship of THA in patients with dwarfism was 92.9%, 92.9%, and 80.7%, respectively; and 94.4%, 86.4%, and 86.4% for controls, respectively (p = 0.95). The dwarfism cohort demonstrated an OR of 3.81 and 3.02 for revision for periprosthetic fractures (p = 0.11) and mechanical wear (p = 0.21), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: THA in patients with dwarfism achieves comparable results to a non-dwarfism population with regards to implant survivorship; however, there is a trend toward increased periprosthetic fractures and wear-related failures. Surgeons should be aware of this potentially higher risk in this population and take morphological differences into account during surgical planning and technique.