Why the study?
Data are lacking for intra- or post-procedural antibiotic use for CIED prophylaxis, and understanding implanter practices nationally may provide insight into the need for antibiotic stewardship.
A national survey reveals wide variations in antibiotic prophylaxis practices among CIED implanters, suggesting a need for improved antibiotic stewardship and guideline adherence.
Marked variation in CIED antibiotic prophylaxis signals stewardship gaps; leaves open optimal regimens for prospective trials.
Antibiotic use for cardiovascular implantable devices (CIED) prophylaxis is well-accepted despite a paucity of data. Pre-procedural prophylaxis lowers the rate of CIED infections; however, data is lacking for intra- or post-procedural antibiotic use. Antibiotic-eluting envelopes (ENVELOPE) [TYRX ®TM ] have been shown to reduce post-procedural infections. Understanding implanter practices may provide insight as to the need for antibiotic stewardship. The purpose of this survey was to assess the practices of implanters nationally. A survey was completed by 150 implanters across the US. Participants were board certificated, implanters of CIEDs, with varying experience (1–25 years), in various hospital settings. Of the respondents, 97% reported routine use of systemic antibiotics pre-operatively. About two-thirds of implanters continue systemic antibiotics post-operatively, with half continuing antibiotics for >24 h; 83% of implanters add antibiotic to saline for the purpose of irrigating the wound; 55% routinely use ENVELOPE on approximately 38% of patients. Common reasons cited for ENVELOPE use were infection concerns, significant risk factors, prior device infection, and immunosuppressed status. Two-thirds of respondents use systemic antibiotics during generator changes, with >50% continuing antibiotics for >24 h. This study suggests wide variations in practice among implanters. Additional attention to existing guidelines and evidence regarding appropriate use of ENVELOPE is still needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kranick et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: