Back to Search Start Over

Impact of Choice of Prophylaxis on the Microbiology of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Insights From the Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT)

Authors :
Claus Rinne
Damian P. Redfearn
Jia Wang
Leon H.R. Bouwels
Paul Angaran
Martin E.W. Hemels
John LeMaitre
David H. Birnie
Leon Rioux
Felix Ayala-Paredes
Giuliano Becker
Michel Degrâce
Omar Sultan
Bernard Thibault
Philippe Gervais
Jamil Bashir
Marco Alings
Paul Dorian
François Philippon
Andrew D. Krahn
Satish Toal
Stuart J. Connolly
Jaimie Manlucu
Derek V. Exner
Vidal Essebag
Benoit Coutu
Ratika Parkash
Matthew T. Bennett
R. Aaron Low
Eugene Crystal
Stanley Tung
Yves Longtin
Carlos A. Morillo
Source :
Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 8, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 8, 11
Publication Year :
2021

Abstract

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.

Details

ISSN :
23288957
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 8, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 8, 11
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....c42d2ba2ae3817c56f4e5ae3b06aaaf0