Key result
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators had a higher risk of secondary infection during Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia than permanent pacemakers (OR 12.6; 95% CI 10.8-14.4; P=0.003).
Why the study?
Does the type of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (ICD vs PPM) affect the risk of secondary device infection in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia from an unrelated focus?
Case-Control (n=30)
Does the type of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (ICD vs PPM) affect the risk of secondary device infection in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia from an unrelated focus?
Odds Ratio: 12.6 (95% CI 10.8–14.4)
Absolute Event Rate: 81.8% vs 18.2%
p-value: p=0.003
In patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia from an unrelated source, ICDs appear to have a significantly higher risk of hematogenous seeding and secondary infection compared to permanent pacemakers.
ICDs may merit closer monitoring during S. aureus bacteremia; case-control data leaves open causal confirmation in prospective studies.
BACKGROUND: The use of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is increasing. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) poses a risk for hematogenous seeding of the device. Our aim is to identify risk factors associated with secondary CIED infection, due to hematogenous seeding, during SAB from an unrelated primary focus. METHODS: All patients with SAB and CIED were screened. Patients with SAB due to a primary source unrelated to the CIED were included. Patients were classified into cases if CIED infection was documented and controls without CIED infection during a minimum of 12 weeks follow-up. A retrospective review of patients' charts was done. RESULTS: Thirty patients with CIED and SAB from an unrelated focus were identified. CIED infection developed in 11 patients (36.7%). No significant differences were noted between cases and controls in the source, time-to-therapy, and time-to-intervene but infected devices were more likely to be implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) versus permanent pacemakers (PPMs) (9/11 [81.8%] vs 2/11 [18.2%] respectively, crude odds ratio 12.6, 95% confidence interval 10.8-14.4; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Hematogenous seeding of a CIED during SAB from an unrelated focus is not uncommon. The risk factors for CIED seeding are unknown but ICD devices seem to be at greater risk when compared to PPM. The reasons are not yet clear. Larger studies are needed to better define risk factors and design preventive measures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Obeid et al. (2012) conducted a case-control in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) (n=30). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) vs. Permanent pacemakers (PPMs) was evaluated on Secondary CIED infection (OR 12.6, 95% CI 10.8-14.4, p=0.003). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators had a higher risk of secondary infection during Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia than permanent pacemakers (OR 12.6; 95% CI 10.8-14.4; P=0.003).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: