Key result
A strict infection-preventive technique including povidone-iodine, double gloving, and antibiotic prophylaxis resulted in a CIED infection rate of 0.26%.
Why the study?
Does a comprehensive infection-preventive technique including povidone-iodine, double gloving, and extended antibiotic prophylaxis reduce infection rates in patients undergoing CIED implantation?
Cohort (n=762)
No
Does a comprehensive infection-preventive technique including povidone-iodine, double gloving, and extended antibiotic prophylaxis reduce infection rates in patients undergoing CIED implantation?
A strict aseptic technique combining povidone-iodine pocket wash, double gloving, and extended antibiotic prophylaxis resulted in a very low CIED infection rate of 0.26%.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support strict aseptic protocols in CIED implantation; leaves open confirmation versus standard care in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is complicated by infection still at a worrisome rate of 2-5%. Since early on during device implantation procedures, we have adopted an infection-preventive technique which has hitherto resulted in effective prevention of infections. Herein we present our results of applying this technique by a single operator in a prospective series of 762 consecutive patients undergoing device implantation. METHODS: A meticulous search for and treatment of active, occult, or smoldering infection was undertaken preoperatively. An aseptic/antiseptic technique was used for implantation of each device. Skin preparation is thorough with initial cleansing performed with alcohol followed by povidone-iodine 10% solution, which is also used in the wound and inside the pocket. In addition, we routinely use double gloving, and IV antibiotic prophylaxis 1 hour before and for 48 hours afterwards followed by oral antibiotic for 2-3 days after discharge. The skin is closed with absorbable sutures. The study includes 382 patients having a new pacemaker (n = 333) or battery change, system upgrade or lead revision (n = 49), and 380 patients having a new implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (n = 296) or device replacement/upgrade/lead revision (n = 84). RESULTS: The pacemaker group, aged 70.2 ± 16.5 years, includes 18% VVI, 49% DDD, 29% VDD, and 4% cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. The ICD group, aged 61.3 ± 13.0 years, with a mean ejection fraction of 36 ± 13%, includes 325 ICD and 55 CRT implants. Over 26.6 ± 33.4 months for the pacemaker group and 36.6 ± 38.3 months for the ICD group, infection occurred in one patient in each group (0.26%) having a device replacement. CONCLUSION: A consistent and strict approach of aseptic/antiseptic technique with the use of double gloving and povidone-iodine solution within the pocket plus a 4-day regimen of antibiotic prophylaxis minimizes infections in CIED implants.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manolis et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation (n=762). Strict aseptic/antiseptic technique with povidone-iodine, double gloving, and antibiotic prophylaxis was evaluated on Infection. A strict infection-preventive technique including povidone-iodine, double gloving, and antibiotic prophylaxis resulted in a CIED infection rate of 0.26%.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: