Search

Physicians engaged in cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED)–related practice come from diverse training backgrounds with variable degrees of CIED implant training. The objective of the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on CIED Implant Training was to establish a common structure and content for training programs in CIED implantation, related activities and maintenance of competency. This executive summary presents the essence of the report with key recommendations included, with the complete version made available in a linked supplement. The goals are to ensure that future generations of CIED implanters are better prepared for continuously evolving CIED practice and quality care for all Canadians.

Background The Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) investigated whether intensification of perioperative prophylaxis could prevent cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections. Compared with a single dose of cefazolin, the perioperative administration of cefazolin, vancomycin, bacitracin, and cephalexin did not significantly decrease the risk of infection. Our objective was to compare the microbiology of infections between study arms in PADIT. Methods This was a post hoc analysis. Differences between study arms in the microbiology of infections were assessed at the level of individual patients and at the level of microorganisms using the Fisher exact test. Results Overall, 209 microorganisms were reported from 177 patients. The most common microorganisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS; 82/209 [39.2%]) and S. aureus (75/209 [35.9%]). There was a significantly lower proportion of CoNS in the incremental arm compared with the standard arm (30.1% vs 46.6%; P = .04). However, there was no significant difference between study arms in the frequency of recovery of other microorganisms. In terms of antimicrobial susceptibility, 26.5% of microorganisms were resistant to cefazolin. CoNS were more likely to be cefazolin-resistant in the incremental arm (52.2% vs 26.8%, respectively; P = .05). However, there was no difference between study arms in terms of infections in which the main pathogen was sensitive to cefazolin (77.8% vs 64.3%; P = .10) or vancomycin (90.8% vs 90.2%; P = .90). Conclusions Intensification of the prophylaxis led to significant changes in the microbiology of infections, despite the absence of a decrease in the overall risk of infections. These findings provide important insight on the physiopathology of CIED infections. Trial registration NCT01002911.

Item does not contain fulltext 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).

Background Infection of implanted medical devices has catastrophic consequences. For cardiac rhythm devices, pre-procedural cefazolin is standard prophylaxis but does not protect against methicillin-resistant gram-positive organisms, which are common pathogens in device infections. Objective This study tested the clinical effectiveness of incremental perioperative antibiotics to reduce device infection. Methods The authors performed a cluster randomized crossover trial with 4 randomly assigned 6-month periods, during which centers used either conventional or incremental periprocedural antibiotics for all cardiac implantable electronic device procedures as standard procedure. Conventional treatment was pre-procedural cefazolin infusion. Incremental treatment was pre-procedural cefazolin plus vancomycin, intraprocedural bacitracin pocket wash, and 2-day post-procedural oral cephalexin. The primary outcome was 1-year hospitalization for device infection in the high-risk group, analyzed by hierarchical logistic regression modeling, adjusting for random cluster and cluster-period effects. Results Device procedures were performed in 28 centers in 19,603 patients, of whom 12,842 were high risk. Infection occurred in 99 patients (1.03%) receiving conventional treatment, and in 78 (0.78%) receiving incremental treatment (odds ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 1.05; p = 0.10). In high-risk patients, hospitalization for infection occurred in 77 patients (1.23%) receiving conventional antibiotics and in 66 (1.01%) receiving incremental antibiotics (odds ratio: 0.82; 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 1.15; p = 0.26). Subgroup analysis did not identify relevant patient or site characteristics with significant benefit from incremental therapy. Conclusions The cluster crossover design efficiently tested clinical effectiveness of incremental antibiotics to reduce device infection. Device infection rates were low. The observed difference in infection rates was not statistically significant. (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial [PADIT Pilot] [PADIT]; NCT01002911)

Sudden cardiac death is a major public health issue in Canada. However, despite the overwhelming evidence to support the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in the prevention of cardiac death there remains significant variability in implantation rates across Canada. Since the most recent Canadian Cardiovascular Society position statement on ICD use in Canada in 2005, there has been a plethora of new scientific information to assist physicians in their discussions with patients considered for ICD implantation to prevent sudden cardiac death due to ventricular arrhythmias. We have reviewed, critically appraised, and synthesized the pertinent evidence to develop recommendations regarding: (1) ICD implantation in the primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with and without ischemic heart disease; (2) when it is reasonable to withhold ICD implantation on the basis of comorbidities; (3) ICD implantation in patients listed for heart transplantation; (4) implantation of a single- vs dual-chamber ICD; (5) implantation of single- vs dual-coil ICD leads; (6) the role of subcutaneous ICDs; and (7) ICD implantation infection prevention strategies. We expect that this document, in combination with the companion article that addresses the implementation of these guidelines, will assist all medical professionals with the care of patients who have had or at risk of sudden cardiac death.

Background The BRUISE CONTROL trial (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial) demonstrated that a strategy of continued warfarin during cardiac implantable electronic device surgery was safe and reduced the incidence of clinically significant pocket hematoma (CSH). CSH was defined as a post-procedure hematoma requiring further surgery and/or resulting in prolongation of hospitalization of at least 24 h, and/or requiring interruption of anticoagulation. Previous studies have inconsistently associated hematoma with the subsequent development of device infection; reasons include the retrospective nature of many studies, lack of endpoint adjudication, and differing subjective definitions of hematoma. Objectives The BRUISE CONTROL INFECTION (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial Extended Follow-Up for Infection) prospectively examined the association between CSH and subsequent device infection. Methods The study included 659 patients with a primary outcome of device-related infection requiring hospitalization, defined as 1 or more of the following: pocket infection; endocarditis; and bloodstream infection. Outcomes were verified by a blinded adjudication committee. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of infection. Results The overall 1-year device-related infection rate was 2.4% (16 of 659). Infection occurred in 11% of patients (7 of 66) with previous CSH and in 1.5% (9 of 593) without CSH. CSH was the only independent predictor and was associated with a >7-fold increased risk of infection (hazard ratio: 7.7; 95% confidence interval: 2.9 to 20.5; p Conclusions CSH is associated with a significantly increased risk of infection requiring hospitalization within 1 year following cardiac implantable electronic device surgery. Strategies aimed at reducing hematomas may decrease the long-term risk of infection. (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial [BRUISE CONTROL]; NCT00800137 )

Background— The resynchronization-defibrillation for ambulatory heart failure trial (RAFT) study demonstrated that adding cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in selected patients requiring de novo implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD) reduced mortality as compared with ICD therapy alone, despite an increase in procedure-related adverse events. Data are lacking regarding the management of patients with ICD therapy who develop an indication for CRT upgrade. Methods and Results— Participating RAFT centers provided data regarding de novo CRT-D (CRT with ICD) implant, upgrade to CRT-D during RAFT (study upgrade), and upgrade within 6 months after presentation of study results (substudy). Substudy centers enrolled 1346 (74.9%) patients in RAFT, including 644 de novo, 80 study upgrade, and 60 substudy CRT attempts. The success rate (initial plus repeat attempts) was 95.2% for de novo versus 96.3% for study upgrade and 90.0% for substudy CRT attempts ( P =0.402). Acute complications occurred among 26.2% of de novo versus 18.8% of study upgrade and 3.4% of substudy CRT implantation attempts ( P Conclusions— Among a broad group of implant physicians, CRT upgrades were performed in patients with an ICD in situ with no difference in implant success rate and a reduced acute complication rate as compared with a de novo CRT implant. Decisions to upgrade were influenced by predictors of benefit in subgroup analyses of the RAFT study and other trials.