Cargando…
1178. Cardiac Device Infection: Do We Follow the Guidelines?
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) such as pacemaker (PPM) and automated implantable cardiac defibrillator (AICD) are commonly utilized in clinical practice. Definitions of device infection (DI) and guidelines for the work up and device extraction (DE) have been publishe...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6808776/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1041 |
_version_ | 1783461818444808192 |
---|---|
author | Nagarakanti, Sandhya Bishburg, Eliahu Bapat, Anita |
author_facet | Nagarakanti, Sandhya Bishburg, Eliahu Bapat, Anita |
author_sort | Nagarakanti, Sandhya |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) such as pacemaker (PPM) and automated implantable cardiac defibrillator (AICD) are commonly utilized in clinical practice. Definitions of device infection (DI) and guidelines for the work up and device extraction (DE) have been published by the American Heart Association and the Infectious Disease Society of America. Our objective was to evaluate whether the work up of DI as recommended was followed, and whether the device was extracted according to guidelines. METHODS: A retrospective review in a 680-bed tertiary care hospital. Adult patients (patients) >18 years. who were diagnosed as having a DI and had the device extracted between 2008 and 2017 were included. Data were collected on demographics, device duration, blood culture (BC), echocardiogram utilization, lead cultures (LC) and device pocket cultures, appropriateness of extraction as per guidelines. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were included. Mean age 68 years (range 23–90). 67 (70%) were male. Devices included: AICD in 75 (79%), PPM in 20(21%). CIED was present <1 year prior to infection in 24(24%). Compliance with guidelines recommendation to draw blood cultures, obtain an echocardiogram and send lead cultures and device pocket cultures were seen in 100%, 90.5% and 49.4% and 67.7%, respectively. Criteria for extraction was met in 65/95 (69%); reason for extraction was a pocket infection in 16/65(24.6%), bacteremia in 49/65 (75%), infective endocarditis in 38/65(58%). Thirty (31.5%) had device extracted without meeting guidelines recommendation, in 17 a diagnosis of pocket infection but without microbiological criteria or clinical diagnosis. In 9 patients lead vegetations were seen but no cultures to support extraction. Mortality was seen in 4 patients, one during the extraction procedure. CONCLUSION: In our institution, 1/3 of the patients diagnosed with DI had no indication for DE. Guidelines recommendation for CIED extraction should be followed as extraction could be associated with significant complications. In this study, overall compliance with guidelines work up recommendations were not consistently followed, especially LC and device pocket cultures. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6808776 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68087762019-10-28 1178. Cardiac Device Infection: Do We Follow the Guidelines? Nagarakanti, Sandhya Bishburg, Eliahu Bapat, Anita Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) such as pacemaker (PPM) and automated implantable cardiac defibrillator (AICD) are commonly utilized in clinical practice. Definitions of device infection (DI) and guidelines for the work up and device extraction (DE) have been published by the American Heart Association and the Infectious Disease Society of America. Our objective was to evaluate whether the work up of DI as recommended was followed, and whether the device was extracted according to guidelines. METHODS: A retrospective review in a 680-bed tertiary care hospital. Adult patients (patients) >18 years. who were diagnosed as having a DI and had the device extracted between 2008 and 2017 were included. Data were collected on demographics, device duration, blood culture (BC), echocardiogram utilization, lead cultures (LC) and device pocket cultures, appropriateness of extraction as per guidelines. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were included. Mean age 68 years (range 23–90). 67 (70%) were male. Devices included: AICD in 75 (79%), PPM in 20(21%). CIED was present <1 year prior to infection in 24(24%). Compliance with guidelines recommendation to draw blood cultures, obtain an echocardiogram and send lead cultures and device pocket cultures were seen in 100%, 90.5% and 49.4% and 67.7%, respectively. Criteria for extraction was met in 65/95 (69%); reason for extraction was a pocket infection in 16/65(24.6%), bacteremia in 49/65 (75%), infective endocarditis in 38/65(58%). Thirty (31.5%) had device extracted without meeting guidelines recommendation, in 17 a diagnosis of pocket infection but without microbiological criteria or clinical diagnosis. In 9 patients lead vegetations were seen but no cultures to support extraction. Mortality was seen in 4 patients, one during the extraction procedure. CONCLUSION: In our institution, 1/3 of the patients diagnosed with DI had no indication for DE. Guidelines recommendation for CIED extraction should be followed as extraction could be associated with significant complications. In this study, overall compliance with guidelines work up recommendations were not consistently followed, especially LC and device pocket cultures. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6808776/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1041 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Abstracts Nagarakanti, Sandhya Bishburg, Eliahu Bapat, Anita 1178. Cardiac Device Infection: Do We Follow the Guidelines? |
title | 1178. Cardiac Device Infection: Do We Follow the Guidelines? |
title_full | 1178. Cardiac Device Infection: Do We Follow the Guidelines? |
title_fullStr | 1178. Cardiac Device Infection: Do We Follow the Guidelines? |
title_full_unstemmed | 1178. Cardiac Device Infection: Do We Follow the Guidelines? |
title_short | 1178. Cardiac Device Infection: Do We Follow the Guidelines? |
title_sort | 1178. cardiac device infection: do we follow the guidelines? |
topic | Abstracts |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6808776/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1041 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nagarakantisandhya 1178cardiacdeviceinfectiondowefollowtheguidelines AT bishburgeliahu 1178cardiacdeviceinfectiondowefollowtheguidelines AT bapatanita 1178cardiacdeviceinfectiondowefollowtheguidelines |