Early, Delayed and Late Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Do the Timing of Onset and Pathogens Matter?
by
, , ,
Anna Polewczyk
1,2,*
,
Wojciech Jacheć
3,
Maciej Polewczyk
4,5,
Dorota Szczęśniak-Stańczyk
6 and
Andrzej Kutarski
6 1
Department of Physiology, Pathophysiology and Clinical Immunology, Collegium Medicum of Jan Kochanowski University, 25-369 Kielce, Poland
2
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Świętokrzyskie Cardiology Center, 25-736 Kielce, Poland
3
2nd Department of Cardiology, Zabrze, Faculty of Medical Science in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 40-055 Katowice, Poland
4
Department of Microbiology, Collegium Medicum of Jan Kochanowski University, 25-317 Kielce, Poland
5
Acute Cardiac Care Unit, Świętokrzyskie Cardiology Center, 25-736 Kielce, Poland
6
Department of Cardiology, Medical University, 20-059 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(14), 3929; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11143929
Submission received: 29 May 2022
/
Revised: 27 June 2022
/
Accepted: 28 June 2022
/
Published: 6 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Infectious Diseases)
Abstract
:Infections involving cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) occur at different times after device-related procedures. The aim of this study was to investigate the timing of onset and factors influencing the occurrence of all types of CIED infections to identify the type of pathogen and to examine the long-term survival of patients with all types of CIED infections. We performed a post hoc analysis of the clinical data from 3344 patients who underwent transvenous lead extraction (TLE) at a single high-volume center between 2006 and 2020, including a group of 890 patients with CIED infections. The occurrence of pocket infection (PI), lead-related infective endocarditis (LRIE) and PI coexisting with LRIE (PI + LRIE) was assessed at the following time intervals: 0–12 months, 13–36 months and > 36 months since last CIED-related procedure. In the study group, there were 274 (30.79%) early infections, 266 (29.89%) delayed infections and 350 (39.32%) late infections. Pocket infection was the most common early complication (97; 39.43%), while LRIE was predominant over 36 months from the last CIED procedure (172; 54.09%). The most common early infections were PIs that were associated with the preceding CIED-related procedure. Late LRIE was most likely to occur in patients with intracardiac lead abrasion. The probability of early versus late LRIE was higher in patients with CoNS cultures. The timing of infection onset irrespective of its type does not affect long-term survival after transvenous lead extraction. The majority of infectious complications (69%) occur more than 12 months after the last CIED-related procedure. Early infections are probably associated with pocket contamination during CIED-related procedure, while delayed and late systemic infections are related to other lead-dependent factors (especially to intracardiac lead abrasion). Time to LRIE onset is associated with pathogen type. The timing of symptom onset does not affect long-term survival after TLE.
1. Introduction
Infectious complications related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) occur in 2.3–3.4% of CIED recipients [1,2,3]. Depending on the severity of the inflammatory process, there are three types of CIED infections: pocket infection (PI), lead-related infective endocarditis (LRIE) and PI coexisting with LRIE. Prior studies [4,5] have shown that the most common cause of LRIE is the spread of infection from the generator along the leads to the endocardium. The analysis of the time relationship of infectious complications with the last CIED-related procedure may suggest the existence of a different mechanism involved in the pathogenesis of the different types of infections. Previous reports also suggested that early and late infections may be caused by different microorganisms, but research has been inconclusive. According to several studies, the most common pathogens causing both early and late infections are Staphylococcal species [6]. Another report found that there were more non-Staphylococcal infections in the late group compared to the early group [7], whereas, according to yet another study, Staphylococcus aureus was more likely to cause early than late infections [8]. In the present study, we assessed the occurrence of PI, PI + LRIE and LRIE at specified time intervals after the last revision procedure, and we also analyzed the types of pathogens and the long-term survival rate of patients with infectious complications.
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Study Population
We performed a post hoc analysis of data from 3344 patients who underwent transvenous lead extraction (TLE) at a high-volume center (consisting of 3 branches in Lublin, Zamość, Radom in Poland) between 2006 and 2020. The clinical records from 890 (28.58%) patients with CIED infections were analyzed including 246 (27.64%) PI, 318 (35.73%) LRIE and 326 (36.63%) PI + LRIE cases. A total of 178 (24.78%) cases of possible endocarditis were included in the LRIE and PI + LRIE groups.
2.2. Analysis of Infectious Complications in Specific Time Intervals
Infectious complications were divided into: early—occurring within 0–12 months after preceding CIED-related procedure; delayed—appearing in the period from 13 months to 36 months; and late—found over 36 months after revision procedure. Factors potentially associated with the occurrence of PI, LRIE and PI + LRIE were analyzed at each time interval taking into account the clinical data (age, gender, concomitant diseases) and the device-related factors (type of system, number of leads, lead dwell time, lead-related abnormalities, procedures before TLE), as well as long-term survival after TLE (mean follow-up 1826 ± 1381 days). A microbiological analysis of cultures from device pockets, extracted leads and blood was also performed, assessing the type of pathogens at each time interval. Cultures from the removed leads were obtained only from patients without local pocket infection.
2.3. Definitions
A pocket infection was defined as the presence of local warmth, erythema, edema and pain or discharge from the device pocket or an erosion or impending erosion of the device according to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines [9].
Lead-related infective endocarditis was diagnosed using modified Duke criteria according to the 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis [9] and the European Heart Rhythm Association international consensus document [10]. The diagnosis of LRIE was definite in the presence of two major criteria or one major criterion and three minor criteria. Possible LRIE was diagnosed when the presence of one major criterion and one minor criterion or three minor criteria was confirmed.
Transvenous lead extraction procedure was defined according to the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) statements [11,12,13].
The term CIED-related procedure (revision procedure) was used to define the following types of procedures performed before infection: generator replacement, system upgrading or downgrading, placement of an additional lead and prior transvenous lead extraction.
Intracardiac lead abrasion was defined as outer insulation macroscopic damage, located in the intracardiac portion of the lead, usually in the first 15–20 cm from the tip, with visible discoloration, frequently with conductor externalization and often with purulent discharge [14].
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Distribution of all continuous variables was evaluated by the Shapiro–Wilk test. The distribution was non-parametric. More of them were expressed as means with standard deviation, wherein values of NYHA FC class and number of previous CIED-related procedures were expressed as median with IQR. All were compared with the ANOVA Kruskal–Wallis test. If there was a statistically significant difference in ANOVA Kruskal–Wallis test, the Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare all individual variables with each other. Categorical data are presented as absolute numbers and percentages and were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA test. If there was a statistically significant difference in the Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA test, the χ2 test with Yates correction was used to compare all individual variables with each other.
The patients were subdivided into groups based on temporal onset and type of infection related to last CIED procedure for comparison within the disease entity and between groups at a given time interval. Characteristics are marked with capital letters E (early), D (delayed) or L (late) in the case of statistically significant differences within the disease entity or Arabic numerals in the case of statistically significant differences between disease entities. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify the variables associated with infection. The survival time was defined as the period elapsing between the last CIED-related procedure (including initial CIED implantation) for noninfectious indications and TLE. The analysis was performed for each infectious complication (PI, PI + LRIE and LRIE) separately at each time interval (0–12. 13–36. >36 months): 0–12 months—data from all the 3114 patients were included; 13–36 months—patients who reached the study endpoints (infection) 12 months since last CIED-related procedure, but patients with noninfectious indications for TLE with follow-up <12 months were excluded from analysis; >36 months—patients who reached the study endpoints (infection) 36 months since last CIED-related procedure, but patients with noninfectious indications for TLE with follow-up <36 months were excluded from analysis.
To determine which factors have an impact on time to infection onset, univariable linear logistic regression was used to evaluate all the data from Table 1 and Table 2. The variables having p values < 0.05 in univariable regression analysis were included in multivariable analysis. Logistic regression analysis included the data from patients with infection occurring 12 months and >36 months since last CIED-related procedure for noninfectious indications.
For each type of infectious complication, the Kaplan–Meyer curves were used to analyze the event-free survival between groups depending on temporal onset of infection, and the differences were tested for significance by the log-rank test.
A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Lack of statistical significance was described as NS (nonsignificant).
Statistical analysis was performed using STATISTICA 13.1 PL (TIBCO Software Corp., Cracow, Poland).
3. Results
In the population of 890 patients who underwent transvenous lead extraction due to CIED infection, there were 274 (30.79%) early infections (0–12 months since last CIED-related procedure), 266 (29.89%) delayed infections (13–36 months) and 350 (39.32%) late infections (>36 months). At 12 months after a CIED procedure, the distribution of the infectious complications was as follows: 97 (39.43%) PI, 117 (35.89%) PI + LRIE and 60 (18.87%) LRIE (p < 0.001 vs. PI and vs. PI + LRIE). More than 50% of PI, more than 60% of PI + LRIE and more than 80% of LRIE occurred at a later time after a CIED-related procedure (more than 12 months). Late isolated lead-related infective endocarditis was the dominant subgroup of all CIED infections (172 cases). The fewest LRIE cases were found in the early infection group, while the highest number was in the late infection group (54.09%). The opposite tendency was seen in patients with isolated pocket infection and with PI + LRIE; in these groups, device infection most commonly occurred 12 months since last CIED procedure (Table 1, Figure 1).
Table 1.
Prevalence of CIED infections at each time interval after a CIED-related procedure for noninfectious indications.
Table 1.
Prevalence of CIED infections at each time interval after a CIED-related procedure for noninfectious indications.
| Number of Cases | 0–12 Months | 13–36 Months | >36 Months | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infection (all); n (%) | 890 (100.0%) | 274 (30.79%) | 266 (29.89%) | 350 (39.32%) |
| Isolated pocket infection (PI); n (%) | 246 (100.0%) | 97 (39.43%) | 70 (28.46%) | 79 (32.11%) |
| Pocket infection with concomitant lead-related infective endocarditis (PI + LRIE); n (%) | 326 (100.0%) | 117 (35.89%) (p = 0.439 vs. PI) | 110 (33.74%) (p = 0.209 vs. PI) | 99 (30.37%) (p = 0.722 vs. PI) |
| Isolated lead-related infective endocarditis (LRIE); n (%) | 318 (100.0%) | 60 (18.87%) (p < 0.001 vs. PI; p < 0.001 vs. PI + LRIE) | 86 (27.04%) (p = 0.782 vs. PI; p < 0.034 vs. PI + LRIE) | 172 54.09% (p < 0.001 vs. PI; p < 0.001 vs. PI + LRIE) |
CIED—cardiac implantable electronic device, LRIE—lead related infective endocarditis, PI—pocket infection.
Detailed analysis of clinical factors in individual types of infection in the studied time intervals showed that late LRIEs were more common in younger patients and in patients with heart failure with a higher NYHA class compared to late PI and late PI + LRIE (2 (IQR 1–3) vs. 2 (IQR 1–2) vs. 2 (IQR 1–2); p = 0.006).
There were significantly more women in the delayed LRIE group compared to the delayed PI and PI + LRIE groups (p = 0.044). Patients with LRIE more often had diabetes (27.36% vs. 22.92 vs. 22.70 in the PI and PI + LRIE groups; p = 0.013) and higher creatinine levels compared to the PI and PI + LRIE groups (1.59 ± 1.29 vs. 1.38 ± 1.09 vs. 1.29 ± 1.00; p < 0.001). These differences were significant in all analyzed time intervals.
Detailed analysis of the remaining clinical factors revealed non-specific differences between the different types of infection in the time periods studied.
With regard to device-related factors and type and timing of infection, early infections, compared to late ones, were more common in patients with high voltage (HV) lead—significant differences were found in both the PI and LRIE groups (32.99% vs. 17.72%, p = 0.009, and 41.67% vs. 26.74%, p = 0.026, respectively). Early, delayed and late LRIEs were more common in patients with the presence of lead in the coronary sinus.
Time-dependent analysis showed a greater number of leads in patients with early infections, especially in early PI and early PI + LRIE compared to late infections of this type (p= 0.026 and p < 0.001, respectively). Similarly, there was a tendency for early infection in patients with abandoned leads, especially in the early PI + LRIE group compared to delayed and late infections of this type (27.35% vs. 14.55% vs. 8.08%; p < 0.001).
The number of previous device-related procedures was lowest in patients with LRIE (1.79 ± 1.11 vs. 1.98 ± 1.13 in the PI + LRIE group vs. 2.09 ± 1.14 in the PI group; p = 0.004). Previous CIED-related procedures were on average significantly more common in the early PI rather than early LRIE group (2 (IQR 2–3) vs. 2 (IQR 1–2); p = 0.002). Moreover, in all types of infections, the number of revision procedures was lower in patients with late rather than early infections.
Dwell time of the oldest lead per patient during the last procedure before TLE was shorter in patients with late infections compared to early infections of all types. Late PI and late LRIE more often occurred in patients with longer lead dwell time during TLE compared to early infections of this type (113.7 ± 73.77 vs. 89.59 ± 58.71 months; p < 0.001 and 104.3 ± 61.07 vs. 67.33 ± 64.63 months; p < 0.001).
Patients with late LRIE were more likely to have excessively elongated loops of the leads (9.30% vs. 5.06% in patients with late PI vs. 3.03% in patients with late PI + LRIE; p = 0.006). Similarly, the phenomenon of abrasion of leads was more often found in delayed and late LRIE compared to late PI and late PI + LRIE (33.72% vs. 27.14% vs. 12.73%; p= 0.002).
Late infections of all types, especially late LRIE, were less likely to be associated with the preceding revision procedure (65.12% late LRIE occurred after primary implantation of CIED, without any preceding procedure), while the most early infections, especially early PIs (59.79%) were found after unit replacement (Table 2).
Table 2.
Clinical and procedural findings depending on type of infection and temporal onset related to last CIED procedure for noninfectious indications.
Table 2.
Clinical and procedural findings depending on type of infection and temporal onset related to last CIED procedure for noninfectious indications.
| Early (E) | Delayed (D) | Late (L) | ANOVA Kruskal-Wallis 3–5 | Early (E) | Delayed (D) | Late (L) | ANOVA Kruskal-Wallis 7–9 | Early (E) | Delayed (D) | Late (L) | ANOVA Kruskall-Wallis | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 11 12 13 | 2 6 10 | 3 7 11 | 4 8 12 | 5 9 13 | |||
| All | PI (All) | 0–12 month | 13–36 month | >36 month | p | PI +LRIE (All) | 0–12 month | 13–36 month | >36 month | p | LRIE (All) | 0–12 month | 13–36 month | >36 month | p | p | p | p | p | |
| Time to TLE since last CIED procedure [months], (mean ± SD) | 35.73 ±33.03 | 31.46 ±31.34 | 5.84 ±3.55 | 23.94 ±7.94 | 69.59 ±26.05 | 28.81 ±27.41 | 5.54 ±3.62 | 22.64 ±7.44 | 63.17 ±23.09 | <0.001 | 46.13 ±36.85 | 6.53 ±3.38 | 23.24 ±7.07 | 71.38 ±32.14 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.200 | 0.447 | 0.062 | |
| Patient characteristics | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Number of patients; n (%) | 890 (100) | 246 (100.0) | 97 (39.43) | 70 E (28.46) | 79 (32.11) | 326 (100.0) | 117 (35.89) | 110 (33.74) | 99 (30.37) | 318 (100.0) | 60 (18.87) | 86 E (27.04) | 172 DDD EEE (54.09) | |||||||
| Patient age during last procedure before TLE [years] | 65.20 ±14.31 | 67.19 ±13.39 | 68.88 ±13.83 | 66.64 ±13.79 | 65.61 ±12.36 | 0.079 | 66.66 ±13.79 | 66.81 ±13.77 | 66.59 ±15.40 | 66.57 ±11.94 | 0.665 | 62.18 222 666 ±14.98 | 63.76 3 ±15.41 | 64.53 ±13.56 | 60.46 D 5 99 ±15.38 | 0.052 | <0.001 | 0.061 | 0.278 | 0.004 |
| Female patient; n (%) | 275 (30.90) | 72 (29.27) | 37 (38.14) | 11 E (15.71) | 24 (30.38) | 0.007 | 99 (30.37) | 41 (35.04) | 32 (29.09) | 26 (26.26) | 0.354 | 104 (32.70) | 19 (31.67) | 29 4 (33.72) | 56 (32.56) | 0.965 | 0.426 | 0.786 | 0.044 | 0.518 |
| NYHA [class]; (median, IQR) | 2 [1–2] | 2 [1–2] | 2 [1–2] | 2 [1–2] | 2 [1–2] | 0.992 | 2 [1–2] | 2 [1–2] | 2 [1–2] | 2 [1–2] | 0.991 | 2 2 66 [1–3] | 2 [1–2] | 2 [1–2] | 2 5 99 [2–3] | 0.288 | 0.002 | 0.689 | 0.491 | 0.006 |
| LVEF [%]; (mean±SD) | 47.92 ±14.74 | 48.57 ±14.23 | 48.49 ±14.10 | 46.19 ±14.23 | 51.0 D ±14.19 | 0.079 | 47.72 ±14.50 | 48.34 ±14.99 | 46.09 ±14.55 | 48.79 ±13.95 | 0.355 | 47.64 ±15.36 | 47.72 ±14.77 | 45.18 ±15.96 | 48.68 ±15.21 | 0.270 | 0.626 | 0.939 | 0.958 | 0.543 |
| AF permanent; n (%) | 234 (26.29) | 77 (31.30) | 28 (28.87) | 23 (32.86) | 26 (32.91) | 0.803 | 77 (23.62) | 29 (24.79) | 22 (20.00) | 26 (26.26) | 0.531 | 80 (25.16) | 12 (20.00) | 20 (23.26) | 48 (27.91) | 0.428 | 0.107 | 0.461 | 0.114 | 0.502 |
| Diabetes (any) n (%) | 204 (22.92) | 43 (17.48) | 18 (18.56) | 9 (12.86) | 16 (20.25) | 0.465 | 74 (22.70) | 25 (21.37) | 28 (25.45) | 21 (21.21) | 0.699 | 87 22 (27.36) | 19 (31.67) | 25 4 (29.07) | 43 (25.00) | 0.559 | 0.013 | 0.161 | 0.039 | 0.561 |
| Creatinine level [mg / dl]; (mean±SD) | 1.38 ±1.09 | 1.24 ±0.86 | 1.26 ±0.75 | 1.33 ±1.29 | 1.13 ±0.35 | 0.371 | 1.29 ±1.00 | 1.28 ±0.76 | 1.34 ±1.29 | 1.25 ±0.89 | 0.166 | 1.59 222 ±1.29 | 1.70 33 7 ±1.37 | 1.51 8 ±1.13 | 1.59 555 999 ±1.34 | 0.416 | <0.001 | 0.020 | 0.151 | 0.001 |
| System and history of pacing | ||||||||||||||||||||
| HV lead presence before TLE n (%) | 278 31.24) | 74 (30.08) | 32 (32.99) | 28 (40.00) | 14 EEE DDD (17.72) | 0.009 | 98 (30.06) | 38 (32.48) | 34 (30.91) | 26 (26.26) | 0.595 | 106 (33.33) | 25 (41.67) | 35 E (40.70) | 46 D E (26.74) | 0.026 | 0.714 | 0.387 | 0.606 | 0.595 |
| CS lead presence before TLE n (%) | 176 (19.78) | 36 (14.63) | 17 (17.53) | 10 (14.29) | 9 (11.39) | 0.518 | 58 (17.79) | 31 (26.50) | 15 E (13.64) | 12 E (12.12) | 0.009 | 82 22 (25.79) | 20 3 (33.33) | 23 (26.74) | 39 (22.67) | 0.261 | 0.002 | 0.047 | 0.046 | 0.019 |
| Number of leads in the heart before TLE (mean ± SD) | 2.08 ±0.80 | 1.97 ±0.73 | 2.12 ±0.74 | 1.87 E ±0.76 | 1.86 E ±0.66 | 0.026 | 2.16 2 ±0.80 | 2.37 ±0.92 | 2.15 4 ±0.75 | 1.94 EEE L ±0.62 | <0.001 | 2.08 ±0.83 | 2.28 ±1.04 | 2.09 ±0.81 | 2.01 ±0.76 | 0.261 | 0.018 | 0.107 | 0.043 | 0.333 |
| Presence of abandoned leads before TLE n (%) | 123 (13.82) | 26 (10.57) | 15 (15.64) | 5 (7.14) | 6 (7.59) | 0.132 | 56 (17.18) | 32 (27.35) | 16 E (14.55) | 8 E (8.08) | <0.001 | 41 (12.98) | 9 (15.00) | 10 (11.63) | 22 (12.79) | 0.835 | 0.070 | 0.035 | 0.428 | 0.291 |
| Number of previous CIED-related procedures (median, IQR) | 2 [1–2] | 2 [1–2] | 2 [2–2] | 2 EE [1–2] | 2 EE [1–2] | 0.015 | 2 [1–2] | 2 [2–3] | 2 [1–2] | 1 EEE [1–2] | <0.001 | 1 2 66 [1–2] | 2 333 [1–2] | 2 [1–2] | 1 E [1–2] | 0.012 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.712 | 0.994 |
| Dwell time of the oldest lead per patient during TLE [months] (mean ±SD) | 91.64 ±69.65 | 92.39 ±68.86 | 89.59 ±58.71 | 72.23 ±70.32 | 113.7 DDD ±73.77 | <0.001 | 90.45 ±69.93 | 97.69 ±74.91 | 81.52 ±75.53 | 91.82 D ±55.44 | 0.034 | 92.29 ±70.19 | 67.33 3 77 ±64.63 | 85.62 ±84.79 | 104.3 EEE DDD ±61.07 | <0.001 | 0.967 | 0.016 | 0.758 | 0.238 |
| Dwell time of the oldest lead per patient during last procedure before TLE [months] (mean ±SD) | 55.40 ±69.46 | 57.84 ±64.75 | 79.97 ±58.45 | 48.84 EEE ±70.28 | 38.39 EEE ±59.39 | <0.001 | 62.28 ±73.46 | 91.47 ±76.66 | 57.83 ±75.34 | 33.00 EEE ±52.36 | <0.001 | 46.35 22 66 ±67.94 | 61.48 77 ±65.15 | 61.19 ±84.70 | 33.52 EEE DDD ±6.24 | <0.001 | 0.003 | 0.167 | 0.589 | 0.632 |
| History of early CIED intervention n (%) | 44 (4.94) | 14 (5.69) | 8 (8.25) | 4 (5.71) | 2 (2.53) | 0.267 | 17 (5.21) | 11 (9.40) | 3 (2.73) | 3 (3.09) | 0.040 | 13 (4.09) | 3 (5.00) | 7 (8.14) | 3 (1.74) | 0.047 | 0.682 | 0.593 | 0.210 | 0.800 |
| Large lead loop presence in X-Ray before TLE n (%) | 46 (5.17) | 8 (3.25) | 3 (3.09) | 1 (1.43) | 4 (5.06) | 0.457 | 14 (4.29) | 5 (4.27) | 6 (5.45) | 3 (3.03) | 0.690 | 24 2 (7.55) | 3 (5.00) | 5 (5.81) | 16 (9.30) | 0.431 | 0.010 | 0.568 | 0.314 | 0.006 |
| Leads on the both side of the chest n (%) | 28 (3.15) | 4 (1.63) | 2 (2.06) | 1 (1.43) | 1 (1.27) | 0.907 | 9 (2.76) | 4 (3.42) | 4 (3.64) | 1 (1.01) | 0.443 | 15 (4.72) | 4 (6.67) | 3 (3.49) | 8 (4.65) | 0.672 | 0.093 | 0.323 | 0.670 | 0.133 |
| Lead abrasion; n (%) | 225 (25.28) | 56 (22.76) | 22 (22.68) | 19 (27.14) | 15 (18.99) | 0.614 | 66 (20.25) | 31 (26.50) | 14 4 (12.73) | 21 (21.21) | 0.041 | 113 22 666 (35.53) | 21 (6.67) | 29 888 (33.72) | 63 55 9 (20.93) | 0.840 | <0.001 | 0.147 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| The type of last procedure before TLE | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary system implantation; n (%) | 404 (45.39) | 100 (40.65) | 16 (16.49) | 36 EEE (51.43) | 48 EEE (60.76) | <0.001 | 133 (40.80) | 17 (14.53) | 55 EEE (50.00) | 61 EEE (61.62) | <0.001 | 171 22 66 (53.37) | 21 7 (35.00) | 38 (44.19) | 112 EEE DD (65.12) | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.003 | 0.712 | 0.893 |
| Unit replacement; n (%) | 307 (34.49) | 102 (41.46) | 58 (59.79) | 21 EEE (30.00) | 23 EEE (29.11) | <0.001 | 124 (38.04) | 61 (52.14) | 38 EE (34.55) | 25 EE (25.25) | 0.002 | 81 222 666 (25.47) | 23 3 (38.33) | 25 (29.07) | 33 EE (19.19) | 0.009 | <0.001 | 0.030 | 0.645 | 0.381 |
| Up-grading of the system; n (%) | 57 (6.40) | 16 (6.50) | 7 (7.22) | 7 (10.00) | 2 (2.53) | 0.172 | 20 (6.13) | 8 (6.84) | 7 (6.36) | 5 (5.05) | 0.856 | 21 (6.60) | 4 (6.67) | 11 (12.79) | 6 D (3.49) | 0.018 | 0.952 | 0.990 | 0.281 | 0.686 |
| Any CIED-related procedure (excluding primary system implantation); n (%) | 486 (54.61) | 146 (59.34) | 81 (83.51) | 34 EEE (48.57) | 31 EEE (39.24) | <0.001 | 193 (59.20) | 100 (85.47) | 55 EEE (50.00) | 38 EEE (38.38) | <0.001 | 147 22 66 (46.27 | 39 3 7 (65.00) | 48 (55.81) | 60 EEE DD (34.88) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.809 | 0.893 |
Abbreviations: AF—atrial fibrillation, BMI—body mass index, CIED—cardiac implantable electronic device, CRT—cardiac resynchronization therapy, CS—coronary sinus, ICD—implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, HV—high voltage (lead), LVEF—left ventricular ejection fraction, NYHA—New York Heart Association, TLE—transvenous lead extraction. E—p < 0.05, EE—p < 0.01, EEE—p < 0.001 (E—compared to early infection, D—compared to delayed infection, L—compared to late infection within the groups: PI, PI + LRIE, LRIE). N—p < 0.05, NN—p < 0.01, NNN—p < 0.001 (compared to the data from column N). E—early, D—delayed, L—late infectious complications.
Analysis of cultures from the pocket, leads or blood showed that coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CoNS) were more often found in early vs. delayed and late LRIE (6.67 vs. 5.81% vs. 1.16%; p = 0.05). Staphylococcus epidermidis was most common in patients with early PI + LRIE compared to early PI (28.21% vs. 12.37%; p= 0.018) and less common in delayed LRIE compared to delayed PI + LRIE (16.28% vs. 31.82%; p= 0.034). This pathogen was also less frequent in patients with late PI + LRIE compared to early and delayed infections of this type (14.14% vs. 28.21% vs. 31.82; p = 0.009).
Staphylococcus aureus was most often found in patients with PI + LRIE, especially in the group of late PI + LRIE compared to late isolated LRIE (18.18% vs. 7.56%; p = 0.012).
Negative cultures were observed more often in patients with early PI compared to LRIE + PI (35.77% vs. 20.51%; p = 0.014) and in the group of delayed LRIE compared to delayed LRIE + PI (32.56% vs. 16.36%; p = 0.01) (Table 3).
Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that the main risk factor of isolated pocket infections in all analyzed time intervals was any CIED-related procedure before TLE, and the probability of PI occurrence was highest in the early period after the revision procedure (HR = 7.350; 5.507–10.865 95%CI; p < 0.001). The probability of PI in all analyzed time intervals also increased with the age of patients during the last procedure before TLE. The risk of late PI was lower in women (HR = 0.468; 0.284–0.769 95%CI; p = 0.003).
The probability of developing PI + LRIE increased with any CIED-related procedure, especially in the early period since the revision procedure (HR = 8.388; 6.070–11.591 95%CI; p < 0.001). The risk of PI + LRIE in all analyzed time intervals also increased with the patient’s age during the preceding procedure and was higher in patients with abandoned leads. The probability of early and delayed PI + LRIE increased in patients with a higher creatinine level. The risk of early, delayed and late PI+ LRIE was lower in patients with a shorter dwell time of the oldest lead. The probability of the delayed and late PI + LRIE was also lower in females and in patients that used long-term anticoagulation therapy.
The probability of occurrence of the isolated LRIE in all time intervals increased with any CIED-related procedure and was highest in the early period (HR-5.733. 95%CI: 3.662–8.975; p < 0.001). The risk of early, delayed and late LRIE was also higher in patients with abrasion of the leads. The probability of late LRIE increased in patients with a higher NYHA class and higher creatinine level (HR = 1.490. 95%CI: 1.123–1.978; p = 0.006 and HR = 1.270. 95%CI 1.137–1.418; p < 0.001). The risk of isolated LRIE in the late period after last procedure was also higher in patients with lead in the coronary sinus and with abandoned lead (HR = 2.322. 95%CI 1.471–3.664; p < 0.001 and HR = 2.210. 95%CI 1.213–4.029; p = 0.010). The probability of early LRIE was higher in patients with the leads on both sides of the chest (HR = 3.752; 95%CI 1.036–13.588; p = 0.044).
The probability of LRIE in all analyzed time intervals decreased in patients with a shorter dwell time of the oldest lead (Table 4).
The comparative analysis of the risk of early versus late infections showed that the probability of late infections increased in patients with a higher NYHA class (OR = 1.024. 95% CI 1.008–1.038; p = 0.002). Risk of early infectious complications increased with the age of patients and with the body mass index (BMI) (OR = 1.654. 95% CI 1.213–1.256, p < 0.001, and OR = 1.053. 95% CI 1.004–1.103, p = 0.032, respectively).
With regard to device-related factors, patients with more leads (OR = 2.387. 95% CI 1.188- 4.785; p = 0.014) presented a higher probability of late infections. Patients with high voltage (HV) leads (OR = 3.040. 95% CI 1.761–5.236; p < 0.01), longer lead dwell time during last revision procedure (OR = 1.091. 95% CI 1.031–1.153; p = 0. 03), any previous CIED-related procedure (OR = 4.016. 95% CI 2.304–6.993; p < 0.01) and the presence of CoNS in cultures (OR = 3.994. 95% CI 1.344–11.776; p = 0.012) were more likely to have early rather than late infection. The probability of early compared to late PI was also higher in patients with CRT-D (OR = 7.299. 95% CI 1.078–50.00; p = 0.040).
Patients with more leads were more likely to develop late PI + LRIE, but the tendency was only seen in the univariate analysis, whereas an increased risk of early versus late PI + LRIE was observed after any CIED-related procedure and in patients with the presence of Staphylococcus epidermidis in cultures (OR = 2.326. 95% CI 0.993–5.435; p = 0.051).
The probability of early LRIE was higher in patients with HV leads (OR = 3.367. 95% CI 1.401–8.130; p = 0.006), with older leads during last CIED-related procedure (OR = 2.326 95% CI 0.993–5.435; p = 0.051) and with the presence of CoNS in cultures (OR = 10.00 95% CI 1.429–71.43; p = 0.020) (Table 5).
At long-term follow-up after TLE (1826± 1381 days), the probability of event-free survival at all time intervals was highest in patients with PI (about 45% after 10 years) and lowest in those with LRIE (about 35% after 10 years) (Figure 2A). Detailed analysis of each group: isolated PI (Figure 2B), PI + LRIE (Figure 2C) and isolated LRIE (Figure 2D) showed no significant differences in survival rates between successive time intervals.
4. Discussion
Infectious complications in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices occur at various times after initial placement and appear to be frequently associated with previous device procedures. Prior studies have shown that rates of infection were two to five times higher after revision procedures than after initial implantation (initial 0.5–0.8%, revision 1–4% at 1 to 3 years of follow-up) [15,16,17]. In the present study, the rate of cardiac device infection after a CIED-related procedure was only slightly higher than that observed after initial implantation (54.61% vs. 45.39%), and the most common infectious complications were found up to 12 months after generator replacement procedures. Multi-year analysis of 62 infection cases documented similar results: 33 (53.2%) infections occurred after initial implantation, 18 (29.0%) after the second procedure and 11 (17.7%) after the third and more procedures [18]. Previous reports comparing early and late CIED infections showed that the symptoms of pocket infection (erythema, pain, swelling, warmth and pus or drainage from the pocket) were likely to occur 6 to 12 months since last device procedure, whereas the signs of systemic symptoms predominated in late infections [7,19,20,21]. The current study confirmed a relatively high incidence of PI in the early period after the preceding procedure, while LRIE was more frequent in more than 36 months after the last CIED-related procedure. However, the present study demonstrated that a high rate of PI also occurred at >12 months after any revision procedure (over 50% of infectious complications, including 23.26% of PI occurring at >60 months after last CIED procedure). The same tendency was already observed in one previous report [7]; however, the factors that may favor the development of late pocket infections without a direct relationship with previous CIED procedure have not been identified so far. It was postulated that the risk of late PI was higher in patients with a too-shallow generator location and, consequently, progressive erosion of the pocket, as well as with the identification of less virulent pathogens, mainly coagulase-negative Staphylococci [7].
The spread of an infection from the device pocket along the leads to the endocardium is, according to most investigators, the most likely cause of LRIE (systemic infection) [7,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. In the present study, PI + LRIE occurred at a similar rate at all time intervals, whereas isolated LRIE was more evident over an extended period of time (>50% of LRIE cases occurred at >5 years after last procedure). Moreover, the present study revealed that the probability of early versus late LRIE increased with the presence of CoNS, which supports the concept of bacteria spreading from the infected pocket along the leads to the endocardium. However, such a coincidence was confirmed only for early LRIE, especially coexisting with PI, whereas late systemic infections, most common, were associated with the process of intracardiac lead abrasion. The influence of lead abrasion on the development of lead-related infective endocarditis was described in our previous reports [14,28,29,30], whereas the current study confirmed that the pathogenesis of late isolated LRIE was different and probably not directly related to bacterial contamination of the pocket. This explanation may be supported by the higher incidence of Staphylococcus aureus in patients with delayed systemic infections in this study. Moreover, we demonstrated that the development of late LRIE was influenced by clinical factors such as heart failure and renal failure. Probably, reduced immunity increases the risk of infection, and externalized conductors due to abrasion-related breach of the insulation facilitate the migration of pathogens along the lead and formation of biofilm.
Long-term follow-up of patients undergoing TLE for infectious indications showed high mortality in patients with systemic infections. The relationship between time to infection onset and long-term survival has not been established. Due to the high mortality rate of patients with CIED-related infections, it is important to minimize infectious complications. In order to reduce the risk of infection, antibacterial envelopes, leadless pacemakers and subcutaneous ICD systems are increasingly used. Current research confirms the good effects of new technologies. The use of leadless pacemakers allows for the complete elimination of the risk of pocket infection. Recent studies confirm that by improving the leadless pacemaker implantation technique, electrical stability is ensured, which reduces the need for reintervention [31]. In patients requiring ICD implantation, the use of subcutaneous s-ICD eliminates the occurrence of LRIE, and according to recent studies, the risk of device-related complications related to s-ICD during the 2-year follow-up period is relatively rare [32].
5. Limitations
This is a post hoc analysis, and therefore no randomization was performed. Our findings are limited by the ability to analyze only the patient population undergoing TLE.
6. Conclusions
Most cardiac device infections occur more than 12 months after the preceding CIED-related procedure. The occurrence of various types of infections at different time intervals after last revision procedure is associated with specific risk factors. Early PI is more often associated with last CIED procedure, whereas the risk of LRIE, especially late after last revision procedure, is higher in patients with intracardiac lead abrasion. The pathogenesis of PI + LRIE is probably related to the contamination of device pocket with low-virulent pathogens (most often CoNS) during initial implantation or during previous CIED procedure. The timing of infection onset irrespective of its type does not affect long-term survival after transvenous lead extraction. The persistently high mortality of patients with CIED-related infections requires the search for methods to minimize the risk of infectious complications.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.K.; Data curation, A.P., M.P. and D.S.-S.; Formal analysis, A.P., W.J. and A.K.; Investigation, A.P, A.K, M.P. and D.S.-S.; Methodology, A.K. and W.J.; Project administration, A.K.; Resources, A.K.; Software, W.J.; Supervision, A.K.; Validation, W.J.; Writing—original draft, A.P.; Writing—review and editing, A.K. and W.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
All procedures were authorized and approved by the Bioethics Committee at the Regional Chamber of Physicians in Lublin no. 288/2018/KB/VII.
Informed Consent Statement
Written informed consent was obtained from all patients involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to all who were directly involved in transvenous lead extraction procedures.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Clementy, N.; Carion, P.L.; de Leotoing, L.; Lamarsalle Wilquin-Bequet, F.; Brown, B.; Verhees, K.J.P.; Fernandes, J.; Deharo, J.C. Infections and associated costs following cardiovascular implantable electronic device implantations: A nationwide cohort study. Europace 2018, 20, 1974–1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ludwig, S.; Theis, C.; Brown, B.; Witthohn, A.; Lux, W.; Goette, A. Incidence and costs of cardiac device infections: Retrospective analysis using German health claims data. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 2018, 7, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sandoe, J.A.; Barlow, G.; Chambers, J.B.; Gammage, M.; Guleri, A.; Howard, P.; Olson, E.; Perry, J.D.; Prendergast, B.D.; Spry, M.J.; et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention and management of implantable cardiac electronic device infection. Report of a joint Working Party project on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC, host organization), British Heart Rhythm Society (BHRS), British Cardiovascular Society (BCS), British Heart Valve Society (BHVS) and British Society for Echocardiography (BSE). J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2015, 70, 325–359. [Google Scholar]
- Uslan, D.Z.; Sohail, M.R.; St Sauver, J.L.; Friedman, P.A.; Hayes, D.L.; Stoner, S.M.; Wilson, W.R.; Steckelberg, J.M.; Baddour, L.M. Permanent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator infection: A population-based study. Arch. Intern. Med. 2007, 167, 669–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Baddour, L.M.; Epstein, A.E.; Erickson, C.C.; Knight, B.P.; Levison, M.E.; Lockhart, P.B.; Masoudi, F.A.; Okum, E.J.; Wilson, W.R.; Beerman, L.B.; et al. Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010, 121, 458–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Korkerdsup, T.; Ngarmukos, T.; Sungkanuparph, S.; Phuphuakrat, A. Cardiac implantable electronic device infection in the cardiac referral center in Thailand: Incidence, microbiology, risk factors, and outcomes. J. Arrhythm. 2018, 34, 632–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Welch, M.; Uslan, D.Z.; Greenspon, A.J.; Sohail, M.R.; Baddour, L.M.; Blank, E.; Carrillo, R.G.; Danik, S.B.; Del Rio, A.; Hellinger, W.; et al. Variability in Clinical Features of Early Versus Late Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Pocket Infections. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2014, 37, 955–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Li, X.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, H. Microbiological Characteristics and Clinical Features of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections at a Tertiary Hospital in China. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 360. [Google Scholar]
- Habib, G.; Lancellotti, P.; Antunes, M.J.; Bongiorni, M.G.; Casalta, J.P.; Del Zotti, F.; Dulgheru, R.; El Khoury, G.; Erba, P.A.; Iung, B.; et al. ESC guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: The Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur. Heart J. 2015, 36, 3075–3128. [Google Scholar]
- Blomström-Lundqvist, C.; Traykov, V.; Erba, P.A.; Burri, H.; Nielsen, J.C.; Bongiorni, M.G.; Poole, J.; Boriani, G.; Costa, R.; Deharo, J.C.; et al. European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infec-tions-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur. Heart J. 2020, 41, 2012–2032. [Google Scholar]
- Wilkoff, B.L.; Love, C.J.; Byrd, C.L.; Bongiorni, M.G.; Carrillo, R.G.; Crossley GH 3rd Epstein, L.M.; Friedman, R.A.; Kennergren, C.E.; Mitkowski, P.; Schaerf, R.H.; et al. Transvenous Lead Extraction: Heart Rhythm Society Expert Consensus on Facilities, Training, Indications, and Patient Management. Heart Rhythm 2009, 6, 1085–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kusumoto, F.M.; Schoenfeld, M.H.; Wilkoff, B.L.; Berul, C.I.; Birgersdotter-Green, U.M.; Carrillo, R.; Cha, Y.-M.; Clancy, J.; Deharo, J.-C.; Ellenbogen, K.A.; et al. 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm 2017, 14, e503–e551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bongiorni, M.G.; Burri, H.; Deharo, J.C.; Starck, C.; Kennergren, C.; Saghy, L.; Rao, A.; Tascini, C.; Lever, N.; Kutarski, A.; et al. 2018 EHRA expert consensus statement on lead extraction: Recommendations on definitions, endpoints, research trial design, and data collection requirements for clinical scientific studies and registries: Endorsed by APHRS/HRS/LAHRS. Europace 2018, 20, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kutarski, A.; Małecka, B.; Kołodzinska, A.; Grabowski, M. Mutual Abrasion of Endocardial Leads: Analysis of Explanted Leads. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2013, 36, 1503–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Catanchin, A.; Murdock, C.J.; Athan, E. Pacemaker Infections: A 10-Year Experience. Heart Lung Circ. 2007, 16, 434–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nery, P.B.; Fernandes, R.; Nair, G.M.; Sumner, G.L.; Ribas, C.S.; Menon, S.M.D.; Wang, X.; Krahn, A.D.; Morillo, C.A.; Connolly, S.J.; et al. Device-Related Infection Among Patients with Pacemakers and Implantable Defibrillators: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Consequences. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2010, 21, 786–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sohail, M.R.; Uslan, D.Z.; Khan, A.H.; Friedman, P.A.; Hayes, D.L.; Wilson, W.R.; Steckelberg, J.M.; Jenkins, S.M.; Baddour, L.M. Infective Endocarditis Complicating Permanent Pacemaker and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Infection. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2008, 83, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dai, M.; Cai, C.; Vaibhav, V.; Sohail, M.R.; Hayes, D.L.; Hodge, D.O.; Tian, Y.; Asirvatham, R.; Cochuyt, J.J.; Huang, C.; et al. Trends of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection in 3 Decades: A Population-Based Study. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2019, 5, 1071–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenspon, A.J.; Prutkin, J.M.; Sohail, M.R.; Vikram, H.R.; Baddour, L.M.; Danik, S.B.; Peacock, J.; Falces, C.; Miro, J.M.; Blank, E.; et al. Timing of the Most Recent Device Procedure Influences the Clinical Outcome of Lead-Associated Endocarditis: Results of the MEDIC (Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2012, 59, 681–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klug, D.; Lacroix, D.; Savoye, C.; Goullard, L.; Grandmougin, D.; Hennequin, J.L.; Kacet, S.; Lekieffre, J. Systemic Infection Related to Endocarditis on Pacemaker Leads. Circulation 1997, 95, 2098–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ursaru, A.M.; Haba, C.M.; Popescu, E.; Crișu, D.; Petriș, A.O.; Tesloianu, N.D. A Rare Entity–Percutaneous Lead Extraction in a Very Late Onset Pacemaker Endocarditis: Case Report and Review of Literature. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Machino, T.; Sekiguchi, Y. Positive Pocket Cultures From Cardiac Implantable Electrophysiological Devices Without Infection—Contamination or Colonization? Circ. J. 2015, 79, 1680–1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pichlmaier, M.; Marwitz, V.; Kühn, C.; Niehaus, M.; Klein, G.; Bara, C.; Haverich, A.; Abraham, W.R. High prevalence of asymptomatic bacterial colonization of rhythm management devices. Europace 2008, 10, 1067–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kleemann, T.; Becker, T.; Strauss, M.; Dyck, N.; Weisse, U.; Saggau, W.; Burkhardt, U.; Seidl, K. Prevalence of bacterial colonization of generator pockets in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients without signs of infection undergoing generator replacement or lead revision. Europace 2010, 12, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rohacek, M.; Weisser, M.; Kobza, R.; Schoenenberger, A.W.; Pfyffer, G.E.; Frei, R.; Erne, P.; Trampuz, A. Bacterial Colonization and Infection of Electrophysiological Cardiac Devices Detected with Sonication and Swab Culture. Circulation 2010, 121, 1691–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mason, P.K.; Dimarco, J.P.; Ferguson, J.D.; Mahapatra, S.; Mangrum, J.M.; Bilchick, K.C.; Wiggins, D.; Mounsey, J.P.; Moorman, J.R. Sonication of explanted cardiac rhythm management devices for the diagnosis of pocket infections and asymptomatic bacterial colonization. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2011, 34, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Okada, M.; Kashiwase, K.; Hirata, A.; Nemoto, T.; Matsuo, K.; Murakami, A.; Ueda, Y. Bacterial Contamination During Pacemaker Implantation Is Common and Does Not Always Result in Infection. Circ. J. 2015, 79, 1712–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kołodzińska, A.; Kutarski, A.; Koperski, Ł.; Grabowski, M.; Małecka, B.; Opolski, G. Differences in encapsulating lead tissue in patients who underwent transvenous lead removal. Europace 2012, 14, 994–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kołodzińska, A.; Kutarski, A.; Kozłowska, M.; Grabowski, M.; Marchel, H.; Drela, N.; Opolski, G. Biodegradation of the outer silicone insulation of endocardial leads. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 2013, 6, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Polewczyk, A.; Jacheć, W.; Janion, M.; Podlaski, R.; Kutarski, A. Lead-Dependent Infective Endocarditis: The Role of Factors Predisposing to Its Development in an Analysis of 414 Clinical Cases. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2015, 38, 846–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitacchione, G.; Arabia, G.; Schiavone, M.; Cerini, M.; Gasperetti, A.; Salghetti, F.; Bontempi, L.; Viecca, M.; Curnis, A.; Forleo, G.B. Intraoperative sensing increase predicts long-term pacing threshold in leadless pacemakers. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2022, 63, 679–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gasperetti, A.; Schiavone, M.; Ziacchi, M.; Vogler, J.; Breitenstein, A.; Laredo, M.; Palmisano, P.; Ricciardi, D.; Mitacchione, G.; Compagnucci, P.; et al. Long-term complications in patients implanted with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Real-world data from the extended ELISIR experience. Heart Rhythm 2021, 18, 2050–2058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Prevalence of CIED infections at each time interval after a CIED-related procedure for noninfectious indications.
Figure 1.
Prevalence of CIED infections at each time interval after a CIED-related procedure for noninfectious indications.
Figure 2.
Probability of survival depending on onset of infection: (A) All cardiac implantable device infections. (B) Isolated pocket infections. (C) Pocket infection coexisting with systemic infections. (D) Lead-related infective endocarditis. (A): Probability of survival after TLE depending on infection type p < 0.001. (B): Probability of survival after TLE due to pocket infection depending on temporal onset related to last CIED procedure p = 0.680. (C): Probability of survival after TLE due to pocket and systemic infection depending on temporal onset related to last CIED procedure p = 0.993. (D): Probability of survival after TLE due to systemic infection depending on temporal onset related to last CIED procedure p = 0.751.
Figure 2.
Probability of survival depending on onset of infection: (A) All cardiac implantable device infections. (B) Isolated pocket infections. (C) Pocket infection coexisting with systemic infections. (D) Lead-related infective endocarditis. (A): Probability of survival after TLE depending on infection type p < 0.001. (B): Probability of survival after TLE due to pocket infection depending on temporal onset related to last CIED procedure p = 0.680. (C): Probability of survival after TLE due to pocket and systemic infection depending on temporal onset related to last CIED procedure p = 0.993. (D): Probability of survival after TLE due to systemic infection depending on temporal onset related to last CIED procedure p = 0.751.
Table 3.
Distribution of culture pathogens depending on type of infection and temporal onset related to last CIED procedure for noninfectious indications.
Table 3.
Distribution of culture pathogens depending on type of infection and temporal onset related to last CIED procedure for noninfectious indications.
| Early (E) | Delayed (D) | Late (L) | ANOVA 3–5 | Early (E) | Delayed (D) | Late (L) | ANOVA 7–9 | Early (E) | Delayed (D) | Late (L) | ANOVA | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | (11 12 13) | (2 6 10) | (3 7 11) | (4 8 12) | (5 9 13) | |||
| All pts | PI (All) | 0–12 month. | 13–36 month | >36 month | p | PI + LRIE (All) | 0–12 month | 13–36 month | >36 month | p | LRIE (All) | 0–12 month | 13–36 month | >36 month | p | p | p | p | p | |
| Number of patients (n, %) | 890 | 246 (100.0) | 97 (39.43) | 70 (28.46) | 79 (32.1) | 326 (100.0) | 117 (35.89) | 110 (33.74) | 99 (30.37) | 318 (100.0) | 60 (18.87) | 86 (27.04) | 172 (54.09) | |||||||
| CoNS; n (%) | 40 (4.49) | 16 (6.50) | 6 (6.91) | 8 (11.43) | 2 (2.53) | 0.890 | 13 (3.99) | 5 (4.27) | 5 (4.55) | 3 (3.03) | 0.839 | 11 (3.46) | 4 (6.67) | 5 (5.81) | 2 (1.16) | 0.050 | 0.669 | 0.747 | 0.190 | 0.669 |
| Staph epidermidis; n (%) | 183 (20.56) | 39 (15.85) | 12 (12.37) | 14 (20.00) | 13 (16.46) | 0.407 | 82 (25.15) | 33 E 33 (28.21) | 35 (31.82) | 14 E DD (14.14) | 0.009 | 62 (19.50) | 12 (20.00) | 14 D 8 (16.28) | 36 (20.93) | 0.670 | 0.450 | 0.018 | 0.034 | 0.449 |
| Staph aureus; n (%) | 102 (11.46) | 20 (8.13) | 11 11.44) | 4 (5.71) | 5 (6.33) | 0.330 | 54 22 (16.56) | 20 (17.09) | 16 (14.55) | 18 E 5 (18.18) | 0.766 | 28 66 (8.81) | 8 (13.33) | 7 (8.14) | 13 L 99 (7.56) | 0.386 | 0.012 | 0.476 | 0.928 | 0.012 |
| Staph—other; n (%) | 11 (1.24) | 6 (2.44) | 4 (4.12) | 2 (2.86) | 0 (0.00) | 0.205 | 5 (1.53) | 2 (1.71) | 1 (0.91) | 2 (2.02) | 0.794 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 1.000 | 0.154 | 0.207 | 0.241 | 0.154 |
| STI n (%) | 60 (6.74) | 10 (4.07) | 2 (2.06) | 4 (5.71) | 4 (5.06) | 0.431 | 22 (6.75) | 4 (3.42) | 11 (10.00) | 7 (7.07) | 0.141 | 28 8.81) | 5 (8.33) | 9 (10.47) | 14 (8.14) | 0.817 | 0.669 | 0.138 | 0.512 | 0.669 |
| Streptococcus; n (%) | 3 (0.34) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 1.000 | 1 (0.31) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (0.91) | 0 (0.00) | 0.375 | 2 (0.63) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 2 (1.16) | 0.427 | 0.514 | 1.00 | 0.497 | 0.514 |
| Other bacteria; n (%) | 64 (7.19) | 10 (4.07) | 6 (6.91) | 3 (4.29) | 1 (1.27) | 0.259 | 23 (7.06) | 10 (8.55) | 5 (4.55) | 8 (8.08) | 0.448 | 31 (9.75) | 6 (10.00) | 9 (10.47) | 16 (9.30) | 0.955 | 0.077 | 0.670 | 0.155 | 0.077 |
| Culture negative; n (%) | 243 (27.30) | 88 (35.77) | 37 (38.14) | 23 (32.86) | 28 (35.44) | 0.780 | 70 (21.47) | 24 EE 33 (20.51 | 18 E 4 (16.36) | 28 (28.28) | 0.108 | 85 (26.73) | 15 (25.00) | 28 D 88 (32.56) | 42 (24.42) | 0.358 | 0.137 | 0.014 | 0.010 | 0.137 |
| Lack of culture result; n (%) | 184 (20.67) | 57 (23.17) | 19 (19.59) | 12 (17.14) | 26 (32.91 | 0.043 | 56 (17.18) | 19 (16.24) | 18 (16.36 | 19 (19.19) | 0.817 | 71 (22.33) | 10 (16.67) | 14 (16.28) | 47 (27.33) | 0.068 | 0.340 | 0.799 | 0.962 | 0.340 |
Abbreviations: CoNS—coagulase-negative Staphylococci, LRIE—lead-related infective endocarditis, PI—pocket infection, STI—Staphylococcus auricularis. E—p < 0.05, EE—p < 0.01 (E—compared to early infection, D—compared to delayed infection, L—compared to late infection within the groups: PI, PI + LRIE, LRIE). N—p < 0.05, NN—p < 0.01 (compared to the data from column N). E—early, D—delayed, L—late infectious complications.
Table 4.
Multivariate Cox regression analysis of risk factors of occurrence of different types of CIED-related infections in particular time intervals.
Table 4.
Multivariate Cox regression analysis of risk factors of occurrence of different types of CIED-related infections in particular time intervals.
| Multivariate Cox Regression Analysis | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | 12 Months Follow-Up | 36 Months Follow-Up | Over 36 Months Follow-Up | ||||||
| HR | 95% CI | p | HR | 95% CI | p | HR | 95% CI | p | |
| Isolated PI | |||||||||
| n = 2929 | n = 2642 | n = 2307 | |||||||
| Patient’s age during last procedure before TLE (years) | 1.035 | 1.015–1.055 | 0.001 | 1.028 | 1.006–1.051 | 0.013 | 1.042 | 1.020–1.066 | <0.001 |
| Sex (% of female patients) (%) | 1.008 | 0.647–1.571 | 0.972 | 0.295 | 0.151–0.574 | 0.000 | 0.468 | 0.284–0.769 | 0.003 |
| AF permanent | 1.287 | 0.806–2.054 | 0.291 | 1.529 | 0.914–2.557 | 0.106 | 1.016 | 0.625–1.649 | 0.950 |
| Device type—CRT-D | 1.130 | 0.467–2.734 | 0.787 | 1.174 | 0.431–3.193 | 0.754 | 0.631 | 0.135–2.954 | 0.559 |
| Number of leads in the system before TLE | 1.054 | 0.716–1.552 | 0.788 | 0.922 | 0.599–1.417 | 0.710 | 0.948 | 0.618–1.453 | 0.806 |
| HV lead presence before TLE | 0.898 | 0.505–1.595 | 0.713 | 1.076 | 0.589–1.967 | 0.811 | 1.162 | 0.593–2.276 | 0.663 |
| Early CIED intervention in history | 1.210 | 0.570–2.567 | 0.619 | 1.129 | 0.343–3.721 | 0.841 | 1.069 | 0.260–4.396 | 0.926 |
| Dwell time of the oldest lead in the patient before TLE | 0.993 | 0.989–0.996 | 0.000 | 0.986 | 0.980–0.991 | 0.000 | 0.994 | 0.990–0.998 | 0.002 |
| Any CIED-related procedure | 7.735 | 5.507–10.865 | 0.000 | 4.294 | 2.837–6.501 | 0.000 | 3.863 | 2.513–5.936 | <0.001 |
| PI + LRIE | |||||||||
| n = 2503 | n = 2642 | n = 2307 | |||||||
| Patient’s age during last procedure before TLE (years) | 1.018 | 1.001–1.036 | 0.043 | 1.028 | 1.010–1.047 | 0.002 | 1.048 | 1.027–1.071 | <0.001 |
| Sex (% of female patients) (%) | 0.862 | 0.569–1.304 | 0.481 | 0.593 | 0.383–0.919 | 0.019 | 0.452 | 0.280–0.728 | 0.001 |
| LVEF (%) | 1.410 | 0.806–2.469 | 0.229 | 1.304 | 0.699–2.433 | 0.403 | 1.325 | 0.688–2.554 | 0.400 |
| Diabetes (any) | 1.007 | 0.632–1.605 | 0.977 | 1.369 | 0.874–2.144 | 0.170 | 1.024 | 0.622–1.686 | 0.926 |
| Creatinine level (mg%) | 1.262 | 1.026–1.552 | 0.028 | 1.233 | 1.035–1.468 | 0.019 | 1.124 | 0.881–1.434 | 0.348 |
| Long-term anticoagulation therapy | 0.696 | 0.421–1.152 | 0.159 | 0.484 | 0.280–0.835 | 0.009 | 0.514 | 0.285–0.929 | 0.027 |
| Number of leads in the system before TLE | 1.414 | 0.946–2.113 | 0.091 | 1.655 | 1.083–2.532 | 0.020 | 1.109 | 0.701–1.756 | 0.658 |
| Presence of abandoned lead before TLE | 3.216 | 1.886–5.486 | 0.000 | 2.294 | 1.164–4.519 | 0.016 | 3.183 | 1.342- 7.548 | 0.009 |
| HV lead presence before TLE | 0.812 | 0.509–1.295 | 0.381 | 0.916 | 0.577–1.453 | 0.709 | 1.099 | 0.644–1.876 | 0.729 |
| CS lead presence before TLE | 0.951 | 0.512–1.769 | 0.875 | 0.433 | 0.207–0.907 | 0.026 | 0.819 | 0.375–1.787 | 0.616 |
| Early CIED intervention in history | 1.447 | 0.732–2.859 | 0.288 | 0.653 | 0.202–2.107 | 0.476 | 0.936 | 0.281–3.123 | 0.915 |
| Upgrading or additional lead implantation | 1.346 | 0.806–2.245 | 0.256 | 1.701 | 0.930–3.110 | 0.084 | 0.265 | 0.091–0.765 | 0.014 |
| Dwell time of the oldest lead before TLE | 0.994 | 0.991–0.998 | 0.001 | 0.989 | 0.985–0.993 | 0.000 | 0.985 | 0.980–0.991 | <0.001 |
| Any CIED-related procedure | 8.388 | 6.070–11.591 | 0.000 | 4.619 | 3.271–6.523 | 0.000 | 4.276 | 2.851–6.414 | <0.001 |
| Isolated LRIE | |||||||||
| n = 2693 | n = 2462 | n = 2216 | |||||||
| Patient’s age during last procedure before TLE (years) | 1.014 | 0.988–1.041 | 0.289 | 1.029 | 1.008–1.051 | 0.007 | 1.004 | 0.989–1.018 | 0.622 |
| Female gender | 0.896 | 0.481–1.669 | 0.730 | 0.901 | 0.542–1.497 | 0.687 | 0.666 | 0.466–0.954 | 0.027 |
| NYHA I-IV | 1.050 | 0.652–1.693 | 0.840 | 0.857 | 0.565–1.300 | 0.467 | 1.490 | 1.123–1.978 | 0.006 |
| LVEF | 1.015 | 0.990–1.040 | 0.241 | 0.988 | 0.970–1.007 | 0.228 | 1.008 | 0.995–1.021 | 0.230 |
| Diabetes (any) | 1.806 | 0.986–3.307 | 0.056 | 1.675 | 1.016–2.761 | 0.043 | 1.296 | 0.886–1.896 | 0.181 |
| Creatinine level (mg%) | 1.244 | 1.065–1.452 | 0.006 | 1.164 | 0.986–1.374 | 0.073 | 1.270 | 1.137–1.418 | 0.000 |
| Long-term antiplatelet therapy | 0.746 | 0.412–1.351 | 0.334 | 0.856 | 0.528–1.387 | 0.527 | 0.966 | 0.680–1.370 | 0.844 |
| Number of leads in the system | 1.379 | 0.823–2.312 | 0.222 | 1.061 | 0.697–1.613 | 0.783 | 0.741 | 0.538–1.019 | 0.065 |
| HV lead presence before TLE | 1.187 | 0.588–2.397 | 0.633 | 1.474 | 0.839–2.589 | 0.177 | 1.405 | 0.911–2.167 | 0.124 |
| CS lead presence before TLE | 1.505 | 0.691–3.281 | 0.304 | 1.219 | 0.641–2.321 | 0.546 | 2.322 | 1.471–3.664 | <0.001 |
| Lead implanted before age of 20 | 3.466 | 0.635–18.923 | 0.151 | 6.105 | 1.563–23.837 | 0.009 | 0.658 | 0.199–2.170 | 0.491 |
| Presence of abandoned lead before TLE | 1.458 | 0.536–3.970 | 0.460 | 1.360 | 0.610–3.030 | 0.452 | 2.210 | 1.213–4.029 | 0.010 |
| Abrasion of the lead | 2.603 | 1.371–4.943 | 0.003 | 2.402 | 1.428–4.041 | 0.001 | 2.610 | 1.792–3.801 | <0.001 |
| Leads on both sides of the chest before TLE | 3.752 | 1.036–13.588 | 0.044 | 1.923 | 0.533–6.945 | 0.318 | 1.387 | 0.538–3.578 | 0.499 |
| Dwell time of the oldest lead before TLE | 0.982 | 0.976–0.988 | 0.000 | 0.987 | 0.982–0.992 | 0.000 | 0.978 | 0.973–0.983 | <0.001 |
| Any CIED-related procedure | 5.733 | 3.662–8.975 | 0.000 | 5.497 | 3.768–8.019 | 0.000 | 5.230 | 3.890–7.030 | <0.001 |
Abbreviations: AF—atrial fibrillation, CIED—cardiac implantable electronic device, CRT—cardiac resynchronization therapy, CS—coronary sinus, HV—high voltage, LRIE—lead-related infective endocarditis, PI—pocket infection, LVEF—left ventricular ejection fraction, NYHA—New York Heart Association, TLE—transvenous lead extraction.
Table 5.
Clinical, procedural, bacteriological and CIED-related factors affecting onset (<12 months or >36 months) of infections after revision procedure. The results of univariable and multivariable linear regression analysis.
Table 5.
Clinical, procedural, bacteriological and CIED-related factors affecting onset (<12 months or >36 months) of infections after revision procedure. The results of univariable and multivariable linear regression analysis.
| Infectious Complications (All) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariable | Multivariable | ||||||
| OR | 95% CI | p | OR | 95% CI | p | ||
| E | Patient age during the last procedure before TLE (one year) | 1.018 | 1.007–1.031 | 0.002 | 1.024 | 1.008–1.038 | 0.002 |
| L | NYHA (one class) | 1.269 | 1.012–1.591 | 0.039 | 1.654 | 1.213–2.256 | <0.001 |
| E | BMI (one unit) | 1.043 | 1.003–1.082 | 0.033 | 1.053 | 1.004–1.103 | 0.032 |
| E | CRT-D (yes/no) | 3.040 | 1.718–5.376 | <0.001 | 1.451 | 0.545–3.861 | 0.456 |
| E | Number of leads in the system before TLE (by one) | 1.650 | 1.282–2.123 | <0.001 | 2.387 | 1.188–4.785 | 0.014 |
| E | Number of leads in the heart before TLE (by one) | 1.618 | 1.312–1.992 | <0.001 | 0.741 | 0.398–1.377 | 0.343 |
| E | Abandoned leads (yes/no) | 2.169 | 1.376–3.425 | <0.001 | 1.524 | 0.596–3.891 | 0.378 |
| E | HV lead before TLE (yes/no) | 1.493 | 1.057–2.110 | 0.023 | 3.040 | 1.761–5.236 | <0.001 |
| E | CS lead before TLE (yes/no) | 1.613 | 1.087–2.392 | 0.017 | 0.535 | 0.270–1.059 | 0.072 |
| E | Number of previous procedures (by one) | 1.946 | 1.608–2.347 | <0.001 | 0.896 | 0.682–1.178 | 0.430 |
| E | History of early CIED intervention (yes/no) | 3.704 | 1.618–8.475 | 0.002 | 2.137 | 0.852–5.348 | 0.105 |
| E | Upgrading or additional lead implantation (yes/no) | 2.500 | 1.572–3.968 | <0.001 | 1.147 | 0.639–2.058 | 0.646 |
| E | Dwell time of oldest lead per patient during the last procedure before TLE (by one year) | 1.157 | 1.117–1.200 | <0.001 | 1.091 | 1.031–1.153 | 0.003 |
| E | Any procedure other than first system implantation (yes/no) | 6.711 | 4.651–9.709 | <0.001 | 4.016 | 2.304–6.993 | <0.001 |
| E | Presence of CoNS (yes/no) | 2.817 | 1.129–6.993 | 0.026 | 3.984 | 1.344–11.776 | 0.012 |
| Isolated pocket infection | |||||||
| E | CRT-D (yes/no) | 5.376 | 1.151–25.00 | 0.031 | 7.299 | 1.078–50.00 | 0.040 |
| E | Number of leads in the system before TLE (by one) | 1.695 | 1.012–2.833 | 0.043 | 1.271 | 0.455–3.546 | 0.645 |
| E | Number of leads in the heart before TLE (by one) | 1.650 | 1.043–2.611 | 0.031 | 0.765 | 0.316–1.848 | 0.549 |
| E | Number of previous procedures (by one) | 2.141 | 1.397–3.279 | <0.001 | 0.768 | 0.440–1.340 | 0.350 |
| E | Dwell time of oldest lead per patient during the last procedure before TLE (by one year) | 1.166 | 1.085–1.253 | <0.001 | 1.003 | 0.995–1.011 | 0.477 |
| E | Any procedure other than first system implantation (by one) | 8.547 | 4.202–17.54 | <0.001 | 10.00 | 3.378–29.41 | <0.001 |
| Pocket infection with concomitant infective endocarditis | |||||||
| E | CRT-D (yes/no) | 2.513 | 1.056–5.988 | 0.036 | 1.427 | 0.233–8.772 | 0.699 |
| E | Number of leads in the system before TLE (by one) | 1.812 | 1.160–2.833 | 0.009 | 2.538 | 0.608–10.64 | 0.199 |
| L | Number of leads in the heart before TLE (by one) | 2.092 | 1.425–3.077 | <0.001 | 0.583 | 0.162–2.101 | 0.406 |
| E | Abandoned leads (yes/no) | 4.329 | 1.880–10.00 | <0.001 | 1.815 | 0.244–13.51 | 0.558 |
| E | CS leads before TLE (yes/no) | 2.646 | 1.269–5.495 | 0.009 | 0.839 | 0.165–4.274 | 0.832 |
| E | Number of previous procedures (by one) | 3.279 | 2.174–4.926 | <0.001 | 1.506 | 0.858–2.646 | 0.152 |
| E | Upgrading or additional lead implantation (yes/no) | 6.849 | 2.532–18.52 | <0.001 | 3.745 | 0.653–21.28 | 0.136 |
| E | Upgrading or downgrading with lead abandonment (yes/no) | 5.495 | 1.550–19.61 | 0.008 | 0.479 | 0.044–5.208 | 0.543 |
| E | Dwell time of oldest lead per patient during the last procedure before TLE (by one year) | 1.203 | 1.126–1.287 | <0.001 | 1.053 | 0.955–1.160 | 0.301 |
| E | Any procedure other than first system implantation (yes/no) | 9.091 | 4.762–17.54 | 0.000 | 3.155 | 1.285–7.752 | 0.012 |
| E | Staph epidermidis (yes/no) | 2.415 | 1.200–4.854 | 0.013 | 2.326 | 0.993–5.435 | 0.051 |
| Isolated lead-related infective endocarditis | |||||||
| L | CRT-D (yes/no) | 0.366 | 0.133–1.002 | 0.049 | 1.366 | 0.305–6.117 | 0.682 |
| E | Number of leads in the system before TLE (by one) | 1.661 | 1.086–2.545 | 0.019 | 2.037 | 0.929–4.464 | 0.074 |
| L | Number of leads in the heart before TLE (by one) | 0.692 | 0.491–0.974 | 0.034 | 1.128 | 0.573–2.218 | 0.726 |
| E | HV leads before TLE (by one) | 1.908 | 1.029–3.546 | 0.039 | 3.367 | 1.401–8.130 | 0.006 |
| L | Number of previous procedures (by one) | 0.766 | 0.593–0.989 | 0.040 | 1.357 | 0.808–2.280 | 0.246 |
| E | Dwell time of oldest lead per patient during the last procedure before TLE (by one year) | 1.091 | 1.030–1.153 | 0.003 | 1.110 | 1.000–1.232 | 0.049 |
| E | Any procedure other than first system implantation (yes/no) | 3.058 | 1.653–5.650 | <0.001 | 2.475 | 0.895–6.849 | 0.079 |
| E | Presence of CoNS (yes/no) | 5.952 | 1.054–33.33 | 0.042 | 10.00 | 1.429–71.43 | 0.020 |
Abbreviations: BMI—body mass index, CIED—cardiac implantable electronic device, CoNS—coagulase-negative Staphylococci, CRT—cardiac resynchronization therapy, CS—coronary sinus, HV—high voltage, NYHA—New York Heart Association, TLE—transvenous lead extraction.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Polewczyk, A.; Jacheć, W.; Polewczyk, M.; Szczęśniak-Stańczyk, D.; Kutarski, A. Early, Delayed and Late Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Do the Timing of Onset and Pathogens Matter? J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3929. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11143929
AMA Style
Polewczyk A, Jacheć W, Polewczyk M, Szczęśniak-Stańczyk D, Kutarski A. Early, Delayed and Late Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Do the Timing of Onset and Pathogens Matter? Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(14):3929. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11143929
Chicago/Turabian StylePolewczyk, Anna, Wojciech Jacheć, Maciej Polewczyk, Dorota Szczęśniak-Stańczyk, and Andrzej Kutarski. 2022. "Early, Delayed and Late Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Do the Timing of Onset and Pathogens Matter?" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 14: 3929. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11143929
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
