Why the study?
CIED infections cause significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs, prompting investigation of locally acting agents alongside systemic antibiotics for prevention.
Does a multicomponent prevention strategy involving a gentamycin-collagen sponge reduce CIED infections in patients undergoing CIED-related surgery?
Does a multicomponent prevention strategy involving a gentamycin-collagen sponge reduce CIED infections in patients undergoing CIED-related surgery?
The use of a gentamycin-collagen sponge as part of a multicomponent prevention strategy during CIED surgery is safe, cost-effective, and associated with a significantly lower rate of device infection compared to predicted risk scores.
May support gentamicin-collagen sponge in CIED bundles; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation.
Background: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare expenses. Apart from standard systemic antibiotic therapy, locally acting agents are under investigation as a potential approach for the prevention of this complication. Aims: The study aimed to summarize our experience with a gentamycin-collagen sponge (GCS) in a multi-component prevention strategy of cardiac implantable electronic device infection. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed medical records of 312 consecutive patients who underwent CIED-related surgery and had at least a 6-month follow-up. All the individuals had GCS applied during surgery. An incidence of CIEDs-related infection in our group was compared to the risk level calculated according to the commonly used scores. Analysis of cost-effectiveness was also performed. Results: Incidence of CIED-related infection, defined as a primary endpoint, occurred relatively rarely (0.33%) as compared to the infection risk calculated according to commonly used scores Prevention of Arrythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) — 0.83%; CIED-AI — 0.90% or Mittal score — 1.00%; P <0.001 — for all). We did not record any complications related to GCS. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of our GCS-based approach, which appeared to be financially beneficial (number needed to treat 149–200; difference of CIED infection treatment cost and GCSs price was 5093–26525 $). Conclusions: We conclude that: (1) the use of GCS to reduce CIEDs infections is feasible and safe; (2) our multicomponent prevention strategy involving the GCS application seems to significantly reduce the rate of CIED infection, and it is cost-effective.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaczmarek et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: