The effect of an antibacterial envelope on cardiac implantable device-related infection - A real-world analysis from a tertiary center.

Nadine Molitor, Vera Graup, Daniel Hofer, Pascal Rüegg, Deniza Avdi, Ardan M Saguner, Alexander Breitenstein, Jan Steffel
{"title":"The effect of an antibacterial envelope on cardiac implantable device-related infection - A real-world analysis from a tertiary center.","authors":"Nadine Molitor, Vera Graup, Daniel Hofer, Pascal Rüegg, Deniza Avdi, Ardan M Saguner, Alexander Breitenstein, Jan Steffel","doi":"10.5603/cj.100458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Infections related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Antibiotic-eluting envelopes have been introduced as a technology to prevent CIED infections. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the antibacterial envelope in the real-world population of a tertiary center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cohort study includes consecutively enrolled patients undergoing a device procedure from 01/2014 to 12/2020 at the University Hospital in Zurich. During period A (01/2014-12/2019) antibacterial envelopes were not used, whereas during period B (01/2020-12/2020) antibacterial envelopes were used in all device interventions. Follow-up was conducted by assessing all available patient records from patient visits and hospitalization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1757 patients (male 70.5%, mean age 67.1 ± 16 years), were analyzed during a follow-up of 24 months. In 302 patients (17.2%) an antibacterial envelope was used. The overall occurrence of a device infection was low (n = 15, 0.85%). Factors that were associated with the incidence of an infection were not undergoing a primary implantation procedure (p = 0.024) and a CRT-P/D intervention (p = 0.022). There was no difference in the rate of infection between patients in whom a bacterial envelope was implanted vs. those in whom it was not used (0.6 vs. 0.9%, p = 0.693).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In a contemporary cohort of consecutive, unselected patients undergoing a device intervention at a large tertiary care center, the rate of device infection was low and not significantly different with vs. without the use of an antibacterial envelope. The data have important practical as well as economic implications for physicians performing such procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":93923,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/cj.100458","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Infections related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Antibiotic-eluting envelopes have been introduced as a technology to prevent CIED infections. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the antibacterial envelope in the real-world population of a tertiary center.

Methods: This cohort study includes consecutively enrolled patients undergoing a device procedure from 01/2014 to 12/2020 at the University Hospital in Zurich. During period A (01/2014-12/2019) antibacterial envelopes were not used, whereas during period B (01/2020-12/2020) antibacterial envelopes were used in all device interventions. Follow-up was conducted by assessing all available patient records from patient visits and hospitalization.

Results: 1757 patients (male 70.5%, mean age 67.1 ± 16 years), were analyzed during a follow-up of 24 months. In 302 patients (17.2%) an antibacterial envelope was used. The overall occurrence of a device infection was low (n = 15, 0.85%). Factors that were associated with the incidence of an infection were not undergoing a primary implantation procedure (p = 0.024) and a CRT-P/D intervention (p = 0.022). There was no difference in the rate of infection between patients in whom a bacterial envelope was implanted vs. those in whom it was not used (0.6 vs. 0.9%, p = 0.693).

Conclusion: In a contemporary cohort of consecutive, unselected patients undergoing a device intervention at a large tertiary care center, the rate of device infection was low and not significantly different with vs. without the use of an antibacterial envelope. The data have important practical as well as economic implications for physicians performing such procedures.

抗菌包膜对心脏植入器械相关感染的影响--来自一家三级中心的实际情况分析。
背景:与心脏植入式电子装置(CIED)相关的感染具有显著的发病率和死亡率。抗生素洗脱包膜作为一种预防CIED感染的技术已经被引入。本研究的目的是评估抗菌包膜的有效性在现实世界的人口三级中心。方法:该队列研究包括2014年1月至2020年12月在苏黎世大学医院接受器械手术的连续入组患者。A期(2014年1月- 2019年12月)未使用抗菌信封,而B期(2020年1月- 2020年12月)所有器械干预均使用抗菌信封。通过评估所有可获得的患者就诊和住院记录进行随访。结果:随访24个月,共纳入1757例患者,男性70.5%,平均年龄67.1±16岁。302例患者(17.2%)使用抗菌包膜。器械感染的总体发生率较低(n = 15, 0.85%)。与感染发生率相关的因素是未接受初次植入手术(p = 0.024)和CRT-P/D干预(p = 0.022)。植入细菌包膜的患者与未使用细菌包膜的患者之间的感染率没有差异(0.6 vs 0.9%, p = 0.693)。结论:在一个大型三级医疗中心连续的、未选择的患者队列中,使用抗菌膜的器械感染率很低,与不使用抗菌膜的器械感染率没有显著差异。这些数据对医生进行此类手术具有重要的实际意义和经济意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信