Key result
Significant pocket hematoma independently increased the risk of device-related infection at 1 year, alongside age >75, system upgrade, procedure >1h, and early reintervention.
Why the study?
Cardiac implantable electronic device-related infections are of increasing importance and involve substantial healthcare resources, prompting evaluation of potential risk factors and the utility of PADIT and PACE DRAP scores.
Cohort (n=1,000)
No
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The PACE DRAP score outperforms the PADIT score in predicting long-term cardiac implantable electronic device-related infections, with significant pocket hematoma, older age, and longer procedure duration identified as strong independent risk factors.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device-related infections (CDI) are of increasing importance and involve substantial healthcare resources. This study aimed to evaluate potential CDI risk factors and the utility of the novel PADIT and PACE DRAP scores to predict CDI. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study group included 1,000 consecutive patients undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) surgery. Patients' and procedural characteristics were collected. CDI occurrence was assessed during 1-year follow-up. Moreover, if periprocedural significant pocket hematoma (SPH) occurred, the maximal volume was calculated based on ultrasonographic measurements and ABC/2 formula. The overall incidence of CDI was 1.8%. In the multivariable regression analysis independent CDI risk factors were: age >75 years (odds ratio [OR]: 5.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.77-19.84), system upgrade procedure (OR: 6.46; CI: 1.94-21.44), procedure duration >1 h (OR: 13.96; CI: 4.40-44.25), presence of SPH (OR: 4.95; CI: 1.62-15.13) and reintervention within 1 month (OR: 16.29; CI: 3.14-84.50). The PACE DRAP score had higher discrimination of CDI incidence (area under curve [AUC] 0.72) as compared with the PADIT score (AUC 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: We identified 5 independent risk factors of CDI development. Our study also showed that the PACE DRAP score was better able to identify patients at high risk of CDI than the PADIT score.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sławek-Szmyt et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Cardiac implantable electronic device-related infections (n=1,000). Significant pocket hematoma (SPH) vs. No significant pocket hematoma was evaluated on Cardiac implantable electronic device-related infection (CDI) (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.62-15.13, p=0.005). Significant pocket hematoma independently increased the risk of device-related infection at 1 year, alongside age >75, system upgrade, procedure >1h, and early reintervention.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: