Urban‐Rural Differences in the Outcomes of Patients Hospitalized for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Infection in the United States

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are a serious complication associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Despite guideline recommendations for complete device removal, disparities in healthcare access and resource availability between urban and rural settings may influence patient outcomes. This study aims to evaluate rural-urban disparities in the management and outcomes of patients hospitalized with CIED infections. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the National Readmissions Database (NRD) from 2016 to 2021. Patients aged ≥ 18 years hospitalized with CIED infections were identified using ICD-10 codes. Hospital location was categorized as urban or rural based on the Urban Influence Codes. Baseline characteristics, complications, and outcomes were compared using chi-square and t-tests, and a multivariable logistic regression model was employed to assess the independent association of hospital settings with transvenous lead removal (TLR) utilization. RESULTS: A total of 288,402 patients were hospitalized for CIED infections, with 94.9% treated in urban hospitals and 5.1% in rural hospitals. Urban hospital patients had a higher prevalence of key comorbidities, including heart failure, valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation and peripheral vascular disorders. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in urban hospitals (6.2% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.01) likely due to higher burden of comorbidities and higher rates of acute complications such as stroke (3.1% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.01) and systemic embolism (1.4% vs. 0.7%, p < 0.01). TLR was more frequently performed in urban hospitals (20.1% vs. 9.6%, p < 0.01), with rural hospitals exhibiting 59% lower odds of receiving TLR (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.36-0.47, p < 0.01). TLR was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and 30-day readmission rates across both hospital settings. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights significant rural-urban disparities in CIED infection management. Despite rural hospitals admitting patients with a lower comorbidity burden, TLR utilization was significantly lower, potentially due to limited access to specialized expertise and procedural resources. Given TLR's association with improved survival and reduced readmissions, regardless of the hospital setting, targeted interventions are needed to enhance access to specialized care in rural settings. Further research is warranted to explore strategies for bridging these disparities and optimizing CIED infection outcomes nationwide.