Objectives: To assess the utility of the PADIT score in identifying patients at higher risk of developing CIED-related infections within a six-month follow-up period at a tertiary academic medical center. Methodology: This prospective, descriptive, single-center study enrolled 168 consecutive adult patients who underwent pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator/pacemaker (CRT-D/CRT-P) placement or generator renewal between June and December 2023 at a tertiary medical center in Pakistan. The primary outcome was hospital admission due to confirmed CIED or pocket infection within six months post-implantation. Results: The study analyzed data from 168 patients (mean age: 64.6 ± 14.43 years; 50.7% male, 49.3% female), revealing a generally low prevalence of pre-existing risk factors. The mean PADIT (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial) score was 1.18 ± 1.65, indicating a predominantly low-risk profile. Three patients (1.7%) developed CIED infections, and only one of these cases was classified as high-risk with a PADIT score >7. The score demonstrated poor predictive performance, with a C-statistic of 0.413 (95% CI). Conclusion: The PADIT score did not effectively identify patients at increased risk of CIED-related infections within a six-month follow-up in this single-center prospective study. Further research may be needed to explore additional risk factors and improve risk stratification models for this patient population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nazir et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: