Key result
Secondary prevention ICD indication linked to ~7.4-fold higher odds of device infection.
Why the study?
ICD infections are increasing due to more implants, higher-risk patients, and frequent replacements, requiring an understanding of current infection rates and predictors to reduce related morbidity, mortality, and cost.
Does a secondary prevention indication increase the risk of device-related infection in ICD recipients?
Cohort (n=2,500)
Yes
Does a secondary prevention indication increase the risk of device-related infection in ICD recipients?
Modern ICD implantation at high-volume centers carries a very low overall infection rate (<1%), but the risk is substantially elevated in patients with a secondary prevention indication or those requiring early reintervention.
Secondary prevention indication was associated with higher ICD infection risk; leaves open whether risk-stratified prophylaxis improves outcomes in prospective studies.
BackgroundThe number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) infections is increasing due to an increased number of ICD implants, higher-risk patients, and more frequent replacement procedures, which carry a higher risk of infection. Reducing the morbidity, mortality, and cost of ICD-related infections requires an understanding of the current rate of this complication and its predictors.MethodsThe Shock Implant Evaluation Trial (SIMPLE) trial randomized 2500 ICD recipients to defibrillation testing or not. Over an average of 3.1 years, patients were seen every 6 months and examined for evidence of ICD infection, which was defined as requiring device removal and/or intravenous antibiotics.ResultsWithin 24 months, 21 patients (0.8%) developed infection. Fourteen patients (67%) with infection presented within 30 days, 20 patients by 12 months, and only 1 patient beyond 12 months. Univariate analysis demonstrated that patients with primary electrical disorders (3 patients, P = 0.009) and those with a secondary prevention indication (13 patients, P = 0.0009) were more likely to develop infection. Among the 2.2% of patients who developed an ICD wound hematoma, 10.4% developed an infection. Among the 8.3% of patients requiring an ICD reintervention, 1.9% developed an infection.ConclusionsThis cohort of ICD recipients at high-volume centres have a low risk of device-related infection. However; strategies to reduce wound hematoma and the need for ICD reintervention could further reduce the rate of infection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Philippon et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients (n=2,500). Secondary prevention indication vs. Primary prevention indication was evaluated on ICD infection defined as requiring intravenous antibiotics, hospital admission, or device and lead removal (Adjusted OR 7.4, 95% CI 2.8-19.8, p=< 0.0001). In a cohort of 2,500 ICD recipients, a secondary prevention indication was an independent predictor of device infection (adjusted OR 7.4, 95% CI 2.8-19.8, p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: