Baddour, Larry

Abstract Background Current guidelines from the American Heart Association (AHA) recommend repeating transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in three to five days if there is high suspicion of IE despite an initial TEE that was negative. This recommendation, however, is based on limited published data. Objectives This investigation attempts to identify specific factors that prompted repeat TEE and evaluate the yield of IE‐related findings demonstrated by repeat TEE as compared to initial or prior TEE. Methods A retrospective cohort who had at least one repeat TEE during an index hospitalization or initial course of antimicrobial therapy for IE between January 2014 and September 2018. We assessed the impact of repeat TEE on IE diagnosis and patient management and included a comparative analysis of patients with initial TEE only. Results Overall, 59 (44.7%) of 132 IE patients underwent repeat TEE. In a comparative analysis that involved patients who had undergone an initial TEE only versus those who had repeat TEE, male gender ( P = .029) and presence of a prosthetic valve or annuloplasty ring ( P = .017) were significantly associated with repeat TEE. Importantly, 8 (17.4%) of repeat TEE were critical for IE diagnosis, 8 (17.4%) impacted antimicrobial management, and 11 (23.9%) supported cardiovascular surgical intervention. Conclusions From a population‐based cohort of incident IE cases, repeat TEE was more frequently (44.7%) done in patients with suspect or proven IE and associated complications than anticipated. Repeat TEE remains pivotal in a contemporary practice that involves critical aspects of IE diagnosis and management.

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.