Hansen, Linda K.

AbstractBackgroundInfection remains a major complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Implantable devices that avoid transvenous leads, such as the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD), can reduce the risk of serious infection‐related complications, such as bloodstream infection and infective endocarditis. While the 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines include recommendations for S‐ICD use for patients at high risk of infection, currently, there are no clinical trial data that address best practices for the prevention of S‐ICD infections. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop a consensus on these topics.MethodsAn expert process mapping methodology was used to achieve consensus on the appropriate steps to minimize or prevent S‐ICD infections. Two face‐to‐face meetings of high‐volume S‐ICD implanters and an infectious diseases specialist, with expertise in cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections, were conducted to develop consensus on useful strategies pre‐, peri‐, and postimplant to reduce S‐ICD infection risk.ResultsExpert panel consensus on recommended steps for patient preparation, S‐ICD implantation, and postoperative management was developed to provide guidance in individual patient management.ConclusionAchieving expert panel consensus by process mapping methodology for S‐ICD infection prevention was attainable, and the results should be helpful to clinicians in adopting interventions to minimize risks of S‐ICD infection.

Introduction: Practice guidelines recommend use of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) in patients (pts) at risk of sudden cardiac death and high risk for infection. This has prompted a need to better identify pts at high risk of infection to assist in de novo device selection. The objective of this study is to estimate infection incidence in de novo transvenous (TV) ICD implants and assess risk factors associated with infection in a large Medicare population. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 100% Medicare administrative and claims data to identify pts who underwent de novo TV-ICD implantation between 7/2016 and 1/2018. Device-related infection within 2 years of implantation was identified using ICD-10 diagnosis and procedure codes. Baseline pt factors associated with infection were identified by univariable logistic regression analysis of all variables of interest, including factors in Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices, followed by stepwise selection criteria with a p≤0.25 for inclusion in a multivariable model and a backwards, stepwise elimination process with p≤0.1 to remain in the model. A time-to-event analysis was also conducted. Results: Among 26,742 pts with de novo TV-ICD, 519 (1.9%) had a device-related infection over 2 years. The mean pt age with and without infection was 68 and 71 years, respectively. While more than half (54%) of infections occurred within 90 days post implant, infections continued to be diagnosed with 16% of infections occurring between years 1 and 2. Multivariable analysis revealed several significant predictors of infection (Figure) including age <70 years, end stage renal disease with chronic dialysis and diabetes with complications. Conclusion: The rate of de novo TV-ICD infection in a large real-world Medicare population is clinically significant. The factors associated with increased infection risk identified here can be used to help determine device selection.

AbstractBackgroundInfection is a well‐recognized complication of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, including the more recently available subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD). Although the AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines include recommendations for S‐ICD use, currently there are no clinical trial data that address the diagnosis and management of S‐ICD infections. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop consensus on these topics.MethodsA process mapping methodology was used to achieve a primary goal – the development of consensus on the diagnosis and management of S‐ICD infections. Two face‐to‐face meetings of panel experts were conducted to recommend useful information to clinicians in individual patient management of S‐ICD infections.ResultsPanel consensus of a stepwise approach in the diagnosis and management was developed to provide guidance in individual patient management.ConclusionAchieving expert panel consensus by process mapping methodology in S‐ICD infection diagnosis and management was attainable, and the results should be helpful in individual patient management.