The PADIT risk score, incorporating 5 independent predictors, successfully stratified patients for 1-year device infection risk with an optimism-corrected C-statistic of 0.704 (95% CI 0.660-0.744).
RCT (n=19,603)
Blinded endpoint adjudication
Cluster crossover
Yes
What are the independent predictors of cardiac implantable electronic device infection, and can a risk score be developed to stratify patients?
The PADIT risk score uses 5 readily available clinical variables to effectively stratify patients' risk of CIED infection, aiding in clinical decision-making.
Effect estimate: C-statistic 0.704 (95% CI 0.660 to 0.744)
BACKGROUND Cardiac implantable electronic device infection is a major complication that usually requires device removal. PADIT (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial) was a large cluster crossover trial of conventional versus incremental antibiotics. OBJECTIVES This study sought to investigate independent predictors of device infection in PADIT and develop a novel infection risk score. METHODS In brief, over 4 6-month periods, 28 centers used either conventional or incremental prophylactic antibiotic treatment in all patients. The primary outcome was hospitalization for device infection within 1 year (blinded endpoint adjudication). Multivariable logistic prediction modeling was used to identify the independent predictors and develop a risk score for device infection. The prediction models were internally validated with bootstrap methods. RESULTS Device procedures were performed in 19,603 patients, and hospitalization for infection occurred in 177 (0.90%) within 1 year of follow-up. The final prediction model identified 5 independent predictors of device infection (prior procedures P, age A, depressed renal function D, immunocompromised I, and procedure type T) with an optimism-corrected C-statistic of 0.704 (95% confidence interval: 0.660 to 0.744). A PADIT risk score ranging from 0 to 15 points classified patients into low (0 to 4), intermediate (5 to 6) and high (≥7) risk groups with rates of hospitalization for infection of 0.51%, 1.42%, and 3.41%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This study identified 5 independent predictors of device infection and developed a novel infection risk score in the largest cardiac implantable electronic device trial to date, warranting validation in an independent cohort. The 5 independent predictors in the PADIT score are readily adopted into clinical practice. (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial PADIT Pilot; NCT01002911).
“It's very easy for patients to get to a PADIT score of 7 or higher. [For example] an 85-year-old with renal dysfunction who is under consideration for a second replacement of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator... the consequent 3.4% risk for infection might counterbalance the potential benefit this elderly patient could expect from the new device.”
Birnie et al. (Sun,) conducted a rct in Cardiac implantable electronic device infection (n=19,603). Incremental prophylactic antibiotics vs. Conventional prophylactic antibiotics was evaluated on Hospitalization for device infection within 1 year (C-statistic 0.704, 95% CI 0.660 to 0.744). The PADIT risk score, incorporating 5 independent predictors, successfully stratified patients for 1-year device infection risk with an optimism-corrected C-statistic of 0.704 (95% CI 0.660-0.744).