Why the study?
Temporary transvenous pacing has been linked to increased CIED infection risk, but contemporary population data documenting this are limited.
Does active fixation temporary transvenous pacing increase the risk of local or systemic CIED infection resulting in device system removal in patients undergoing first-time CIED implantation?
Does active fixation temporary transvenous pacing increase the risk of local or systemic CIED infection resulting in device system removal in patients undergoing first-time CIED implantation?
Active fixation temporary transvenous pacing is not independently associated with a higher rate of CIED infections requiring device removal at 1 year after adjusting for confounders.
TP not associated with higher CIED infection risk; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before changing periprocedural pacing.
BackgroundTemporary transvenous pacing (TP) has been associated with an increased risk of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections, but there is little data to document this in contemporary populations.ObjectiveTo investigate the impact of active fixation TP on rate of CIED infections in a nationwide cohort of Danish patients.MethodsWe identified all patients who underwent a first-time CIED implantation between 2009 and 2017. Patients were categorized according to TP status at implantation and followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was local or systemic CIED infection resulting in device system removal. The secondary outcomes were systemic CIED infections and hospitalization for infective endocarditis (IE).ResultsWe included a total of 40,601 CIED patients. A total of 2952 were treated with active fixation TP. The primary outcome was met in 246 patients. Risk of CIED infection at 1 year was 0.61% for patients not treated with TP and 0.65% for patients who were, HR of 1.28 (95% CI 0.80–2.05) and adjusted HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.51–1.42). More systemic CIED infections and IE hospitalizations occurred in TP patients; however, these differences did not persist after confounder adjustment. Cumulative mortality at 1 year was 16.8% in patients with TP vs 8.4% in patients without.ConclusionActive fixation TP was not associated with a higher rate of CIED infections. Patients treated with TP had higher mortality, more systemic CIED infections, and more IE hospitalizations within first year of implantation. Most was attributable to an accumulation of risk factors for infection among TP patients. Temporary transvenous pacing (TP) has been associated with an increased risk of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections, but there is little data to document this in contemporary populations. To investigate the impact of active fixation TP on rate of CIED infections in a nationwide cohort of Danish patients. We identified all patients who underwent a first-time CIED implantation between 2009 and 2017. Patients were categorized according to TP status at implantation and followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was local or systemic CIED infection resulting in device system removal. The secondary outcomes were systemic CIED infections and hospitalization for infective endocarditis (IE). We included a total of 40,601 CIED patients. A total of 2952 were treated with active fixation TP. The primary outcome was met in 246 patients. Risk of CIED infection at 1 year was 0.61% for patients not treated with TP and 0.65% for patients who were, HR of 1.28 (95% CI 0.80–2.05) and adjusted HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.51–1.42). More systemic CIED infections and IE hospitalizations occurred in TP patients; however, these differences did not persist after confounder adjustment. Cumulative mortality at 1 year was 16.8% in patients with TP vs 8.4% in patients without. Active fixation TP was not associated with a higher rate of CIED infections. Patients treated with TP had higher mortality, more systemic CIED infections, and more IE hospitalizations within first year of implantation. Most was attributable to an accumulation of risk factors for infection among TP patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frausing et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: