Key result
An antibiotic prophylaxis strategy based on individual infective risk stratification resulted in similar 250-day CIED-related infection rates between high-risk (1.98%) and low-risk (1.09%) patients (P=0.32).
Why the study?
A more powerful antibiotic protocol has been suggested for patients at high risk of infection, and stratification of individual infective risk could guide prophylaxis before CIED procedures.
Does an antibiotic prophylaxis protocol based on individual infective risk stratification result in similar infection rates between high and low-risk patients undergoing CIED procedures?
Cohort (n=937)
Does an antibiotic prophylaxis protocol based on individual infective risk stratification result in similar infection rates between high and low-risk patients undergoing CIED procedures?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.98% vs 1.09%
p-value: p=0.32
A risk-stratified approach to antibiotic prophylaxis for CIED procedures, using a prolonged 9-day protocol for high-risk patients, resulted in similarly low infection rates compared to low-risk patients receiving standard prophylaxis.
Tailored prophylaxis equalized infection rates across Shariff strata; leaves open whether risk-guided protocols improve outcomes over standard care.
AIMS: In patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) intervention, routine pre-procedure antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended. A more powerful antibiotic protocol has been suggested in patients at high risk of infection. Stratification of individual infective risk could guide the prophylaxis before CIED procedure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing CIED surgery were stratified according to the Shariff score in low and high infective risk. Patients in the 'low-risk' group were treated with only two antibiotic administrations while patients in the 'high-risk' group were treated with a prolonged 9-day protocol, according to renal function and allergies. We followed-up patients for 250 days with clinical outpatient visit and electronic control of the CIED. As primary endpoint, we evaluated CIED-related infections. A total of 937 consecutive patients were enrolled, of whom 735 were stratified in the 'low-risk' group and 202 in the 'high-risk' group. Despite different risk profiles, CIED-related infection rate at 250 days was similar in the two groups (8/735 in 'low risk' vs. 4/202 in 'high risk', P = 0.32). At multivariate analysis, active neoplasia, haematoma, and reintervention were independently associated with CIED-related infection (HR 5.54, 10.77, and 12.15, respectively). CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of patients undergoing CIED procedure, an antibiotic prophylaxis based on individual stratification of infective risk resulted in similar rate of infection between groups at high and low risk of CIED-related infection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Malagù et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) intervention (n=937). Prolonged 9-day antibiotic protocol (high infective risk) vs. Two antibiotic administrations (low infective risk) was evaluated on CIED-related infections (p=0.32). An antibiotic prophylaxis strategy based on individual infective risk stratification resulted in similar 250-day CIED-related infection rates between high-risk (1.98%) and low-risk (1.09%) patients (P=0.32).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: