Use of an Antibacterial Envelope is Associated with Reduced Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections in High-Risk Patients
Introduction The incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections has risen rapidly since 2004. A commercially available minocycline and rifampin impregnated antibacterial envelope has been associated with a low CIED infection rate. We performed a retrospective cohort study analy...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Pacing and clinical electrophysiology 2013-03, Vol.36 (3), p.354-361 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Introduction
The incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections has risen rapidly since 2004. A commercially available minocycline and rifampin impregnated antibacterial envelope has been associated with a low CIED infection rate. We performed a retrospective cohort study analyzing CIED infection rates in patients receiving an antibacterial envelope.
Methods
Prospectively applied criteria for use of the antibacterial envelope included ≥2 of the following: diabetes, renal insufficiency, anticoagulation, chronic corticosteroid use, fever or leukocytosis at the time of implantation, prior CIED infection, ≥3 leads (cardiac resynchronization therapy or abandoned leads), pacemaker dependence, or early pocket reentry. CIED infection rate was compared to a cohort of patients with matched risk factors and a CIED implanted prior to use of the antibacterial envelope.
Results
A total of 260 antibacterial envelopes were implanted from November 1, 2009 to April 30, 2012. The mean number of CIED infection risk factors was 2.8 ± 1.2. The control cohort (N = 639) was matched for mean number of CIED infection risk factors (2.8 ± 1.2), though individual risk factors differed. After a minimum of 90 days of follow‐up, there was one CIED infection among patients who received an antibacterial envelope (0.4%), compared to 19 (3%) in controls (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.13 [0.02–0.95], P = 0.04). This difference persisted after adjustment for covariates (0.09 [0.01–0.73], P = 0.02) and propensity score matching (0.11 [0.01–0.85], P = 0.04).
Conclusions
In patients prospectively identified at high risk for CIED infection, use of a commercially available antibacterial envelope was associated with a marked reduction in CIED infections when compared to a matched control cohort. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0147-8389 1540-8159 |
DOI: | 10.1111/pace.12063 |