Association of the Timing and Extent of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections With Mortality.

Importance: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a potentially devastating complication with an estimated 12-month mortality of 15% to 30%. The association of the extent (localized or systemic) and timing of infection with all-cause mortality has not been established. Objective: To evaluate the association of the extent and timing of CIED infection with all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective observational cohort study was conducted between December 1, 2012, and September 30, 2016, in 28 centers across Canada and the Netherlands. The study included 19 559 patients undergoing CIED procedures, 177 of whom developed an infection. Data were analyzed from April 5, 2021, to January 14, 2023. Exposures: Prospectively identified CIED infections. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time-dependent analysis of the timing (early [≤3 months] or delayed [3-12 months]) and extent (localized or systemic) of infection was performed to determine the risk of all-cause mortality associated with CIED infections. Results: Of 19 559 patients undergoing CIED procedures, 177 developed a CIED infection. The mean (SD) age was 68.7 (12.7) years, and 132 patients were male (74.6%). The cumulative incidence of infection was 0.6%, 0.7%, and 0.9% within 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Infection rates were highest in the first 3 months (0.21% per month), reducing significantly thereafter. Compared with patients who did not develop CIED infection, those with early localized infections were not at higher risk for all-cause mortality (no deaths at 30 days [0 of 74 patients]: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.20-1.98]; P = .43). However, patients with early systemic and delayed localized infections had an approximately 3-fold increase in mortality (8.9% 30-day mortality [4 of 45 patients]: aHR, 2.88 [95% CI, 1.48-5.61]; P = .002; 8.8% 30-day mortality [3 of 34 patients]: aHR, 3.57 [95% CI, 1.33-9.57]; P = .01), increasing to a 9.3-fold risk of death for those with delayed systemic infections (21.7% 30-day mortality [5 of 23 patients]: aHR, 9.30 [95% CI, 3.82-22.65]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings suggest that CIED infections are most common within 3 months after the procedure. Early systemic infections and delayed localized infections are associated with increased mortality, with the highest risk for patients with delayed systemic infections. Early detection and treatment of CIED infections may be important in reducing mortality associated with this complication.

Impact of Choice of Prophylaxis on the Microbiology of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Insights From the Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT).

BACKGROUND: The Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) investigated whether intensification of perioperative prophylaxis could prevent cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections. Compared with a single dose of cefazolin, the perioperative administration of cefazolin, vancomycin, bacitracin, and cephalexin did not significantly decrease the risk of infection. Our objective was to compare the microbiology of infections between study arms in PADIT. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis. Differences between study arms in the microbiology of infections were assessed at the level of individual patients and at the level of microorganisms using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Overall, 209 microorganisms were reported from 177 patients. The most common microorganisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS; 82/209 [39.2%]) and S. aureus (75/209 [35.9%]). There was a significantly lower proportion of CoNS in the incremental arm compared with the standard arm (30.1% vs 46.6%; P = .04). However, there was no significant difference between study arms in the frequency of recovery of other microorganisms. In terms of antimicrobial susceptibility, 26.5% of microorganisms were resistant to cefazolin. CoNS were more likely to be cefazolin-resistant in the incremental arm (52.2% vs 26.8%, respectively; P = .05). However, there was no difference between study arms in terms of infections in which the main pathogen was sensitive to cefazolin (77.8% vs 64.3%; P = .10) or vancomycin (90.8% vs 90.2%; P = .90). CONCLUSIONS: Intensification of the prophylaxis led to significant changes in the microbiology of infections, despite the absence of a decrease in the overall risk of infections. These findings provide important insight on the physiopathology of CIED infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01002911.

Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Task Force Report on Physician Training and Maintenance of Competency for Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Therapies: Executive Summary.

Physicians engaged in cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED)-related practice come from diverse training backgrounds with variable degrees of CIED implant training. The objective of the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on CIED Implant Training was to establish a common structure and content for training programs in CIED implantation, related activities and maintenance of competency. This executive summary presents the essence of the report with key recommendations included, with the complete version made available in a linked supplement. The goals are to ensure that future generations of CIED implanters are better prepared for continuously evolving CIED practice and quality care for all Canadians.

Risk Factors for Infections Involving Cardiac Implanted Electronic Devices.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device infection is a major complication that usually requires device removal. PADIT (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial) was a large cluster crossover trial of conventional versus incremental antibiotics. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate independent predictors of device infection in PADIT and develop a novel infection risk score. METHODS: In brief, over 4 6-month periods, 28 centers used either conventional or incremental prophylactic antibiotic treatment in all patients. The primary outcome was hospitalization for device infection within 1 year (blinded endpoint adjudication). Multivariable logistic prediction modeling was used to identify the independent predictors and develop a risk score for device infection. The prediction models were internally validated with bootstrap methods. RESULTS: Device procedures were performed in 19,603 patients, and hospitalization for infection occurred in 177 (0.90%) within 1 year of follow-up. The final prediction model identified 5 independent predictors of device infection (prior procedures [P], age [A], depressed renal function [D], immunocompromised [I], and procedure type [T]) with an optimism-corrected C-statistic of 0.704 (95% confidence interval: 0.660 to 0.744). A PADIT risk score ranging from 0 to 15 points classified patients into low (0 to 4), intermediate (5 to 6) and high (≥7) risk groups with rates of hospitalization for infection of 0.51%, 1.42%, and 3.41%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified 5 independent predictors of device infection and developed a novel infection risk score in the largest cardiac implantable electronic device trial to date, warranting validation in an independent cohort. The 5 independent predictors in the PADIT score are readily adopted into clinical practice. (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial [PADIT Pilot]; NCT01002911).

Concomitant anti-platelet therapy in warfarin-treated patients undergoing cardiac rhythm device implantation: A secondary analysis of the BRUISE CONTROL trial.

BACKGROUND: Anti-platelet therapy is commonly used in patients receiving oral anticoagulation and may increase bleeding risk among patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery. We sought to determine the proportion of anticoagulated patients who are concomitantly receiving anti-platelet therapy, the associated risk of clinically significant hematoma (CSH), and the proportion of patients in whom anti-platelet usage is guideline-indicated. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial (BRUISE CONTROL). Patients who were receiving warfarin, had an annual predicted risk of thromboembolism of ≥5% and were scheduled to undergo non-emergent CIED surgery were randomized to continued warfarin versus heparin bridging. In the current analysis, patients were divided into those receiving anti-platelet therapy and those not receiving anti-platelet therapy. The incidence of CSH was compared in both groups. The proportion of patients on potentially inappropriate and potentially interruptible antiplatelet therapy was estimated. RESULTS: All 681 patients enrolled in BRUISE CONTROL were included, of whom 280 received and 401 did not receive anti-platelet therapy. Anti-platelet therapy increased the risk of CSH (relative risk, 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09 to 2.72; P = 0.02). Of the 280 patients receiving anti-platelet therapy, 97 (34.6%) had no guideline indication for concomitant anti-platelet therapy and an additional 146 (52.1%) were on anti-platelet therapy that could potentially have been interrupted around CIED surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant anti-platelet therapy in patients receiving anticoagulation is associated with a significant risk of CSH. The majority of concomitant anti-platelet therapy is potentially inappropriate or interruptible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: (NCT00800137).

Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial: The PADIT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Infection of implanted medical devices has catastrophic consequences. For cardiac rhythm devices, pre-procedural cefazolin is standard prophylaxis but does not protect against methicillin-resistant gram-positive organisms, which are common pathogens in device infections. OBJECTIVE: This study tested the clinical effectiveness of incremental perioperative antibiotics to reduce device infection. METHODS: The authors performed a cluster randomized crossover trial with 4 randomly assigned 6-month periods, during which centers used either conventional or incremental periprocedural antibiotics for all cardiac implantable electronic device procedures as standard procedure. Conventional treatment was pre-procedural cefazolin infusion. Incremental treatment was pre-procedural cefazolin plus vancomycin, intraprocedural bacitracin pocket wash, and 2-day post-procedural oral cephalexin. The primary outcome was 1-year hospitalization for device infection in the high-risk group, analyzed by hierarchical logistic regression modeling, adjusting for random cluster and cluster-period effects. RESULTS: Device procedures were performed in 28 centers in 19,603 patients, of whom 12,842 were high risk. Infection occurred in 99 patients (1.03%) receiving conventional treatment, and in 78 (0.78%) receiving incremental treatment (odds ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 1.05; p = 0.10). In high-risk patients, hospitalization for infection occurred in 77 patients (1.23%) receiving conventional antibiotics and in 66 (1.01%) receiving incremental antibiotics (odds ratio: 0.82; 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 1.15; p = 0.26). Subgroup analysis did not identify relevant patient or site characteristics with significant benefit from incremental therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The cluster crossover design efficiently tested clinical effectiveness of incremental antibiotics to reduce device infection. Device infection rates were low. The observed difference in infection rates was not statistically significant. (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial [PADIT Pilot] [PADIT]; NCT01002911).

Management of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Recipients: Care Beyond Guidelines.

This companion article is intended to address common clinical scenarios in patients with implantable defibrillators that were not addressed in the 2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society implantable cardioverter defibrillator guidelines including recommendations for device programming to improve detection, to minimize shocks (appropriate and inappropriate), and to minimize ventricular pacing. Important issues at the time of replacement such as device prescription, technical aspects (vascular access, extraction), and management of components on advisories are also discussed. Finally, common clinical scenarios such as management of patients with terminal illnesses, recurrent ventricular tachycardia, electrical storms, catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia, and system infection management are considered. The management of these patients requires a team approach and comprehensive knowledge surrounding these common clinical scenarios.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society 2016 Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Guidelines.

Sudden cardiac death is a major public health issue in Canada. However, despite the overwhelming evidence to support the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in the prevention of cardiac death there remains significant variability in implantation rates across Canada. Since the most recent Canadian Cardiovascular Society position statement on ICD use in Canada in 2005, there has been a plethora of new scientific information to assist physicians in their discussions with patients considered for ICD implantation to prevent sudden cardiac death due to ventricular arrhythmias. We have reviewed, critically appraised, and synthesized the pertinent evidence to develop recommendations regarding: (1) ICD implantation in the primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with and without ischemic heart disease; (2) when it is reasonable to withhold ICD implantation on the basis of comorbidities; (3) ICD implantation in patients listed for heart transplantation; (4) implantation of a single- vs dual-chamber ICD; (5) implantation of single- vs dual-coil ICD leads; (6) the role of subcutaneous ICDs; and (7) ICD implantation infection prevention strategies. We expect that this document, in combination with the companion article that addresses the implementation of these guidelines, will assist all medical professionals with the care of patients who have had or at risk of sudden cardiac death.

Incidence, predictors, and procedural results of upgrade to resynchronization therapy: the RAFT upgrade substudy.

BACKGROUND: The resynchronization-defibrillation for ambulatory heart failure trial (RAFT) study demonstrated that adding cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in selected patients requiring de novo implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD) reduced mortality as compared with ICD therapy alone, despite an increase in procedure-related adverse events. Data are lacking regarding the management of patients with ICD therapy who develop an indication for CRT upgrade. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participating RAFT centers provided data regarding de novo CRT-D (CRT with ICD) implant, upgrade to CRT-D during RAFT (study upgrade), and upgrade within 6 months after presentation of study results (substudy). Substudy centers enrolled 1346 (74.9%) patients in RAFT, including 644 de novo, 80 study upgrade, and 60 substudy CRT attempts. The success rate (initial plus repeat attempts) was 95.2% for de novo versus 96.3% for study upgrade and 90.0% for substudy CRT attempts (P=0.402). Acute complications occurred among 26.2% of de novo versus 18.8% of study upgrade and 3.4% of substudy CRT implantation attempts (P<0.001). The most common complication was left ventricular lead dislodgement. The principal reasons for not yet attempting upgrade in the substudy were patient preference (31.9%), New York Heart Association Class I (17.0%), and a QRS<150 ms (13.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Among a broad group of implant physicians, CRT upgrades were performed in patients with an ICD in situ with no difference in implant success rate and a reduced acute complication rate as compared with a de novo CRT implant. Decisions to upgrade were influenced by predictors of benefit in subgroup analyses of the RAFT study and other trials.