1. Impacts of a care process model and inpatient electrophysiology service on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections: a preliminary evaluation
- Author
-
Avish Nagpal, Eugene M. Tan, Kevin L. Greason, Henry J. Schiller, Thomas De Ziel, Daniel C. DeSimone, Muhammad R. Sohail, Zhuo Li, Brenda Anderson, Yong Mei Cha, James M. Steckelberg, Larry M. Baddour, Paul A. Friedman, Abinash Virk, Raul E. Espinosa, Walter R. Wilson, Jane A. Linderbaum, and Erica A. Loomis
- Subjects
Male ,Pacemaker, Artificial ,Care process ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Prosthesis-Related Infections ,Length of hospitalization ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Subspecialty ,Cohort Studies ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Physiology (medical) ,parasitic diseases ,Humans ,Medicine ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Intensive care medicine ,Cardiac device ,Aged ,Retrospective Studies ,Aged, 80 and over ,Inpatients ,Retrospective review ,business.industry ,Length of Stay ,Middle Aged ,Survival Analysis ,Defibrillators, Implantable ,Heart Rhythm ,embryonic structures ,Emergency medicine ,Female ,Cardiac Electrophysiology ,Cardiology Service, Hospital ,Implant ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business ,human activities ,Follow-Up Studies - Abstract
Cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection (CIEDI) rates are rising. To improve outcomes, our institution developed an online care process model (CPM) and a specialized inpatient heart rhythm service (HRS). This retrospective review compared hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, and times to subspecialty consultation and procedures before and after CPM and HRS availability. CPM use was associated with shortened time to surgical consultation (median 2 days post-CPM vs. 3 days pre-CPM, p = 0.0152), pocket closure (median 4 vs. 5 days, p
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF