Baddour, Larry M.

Abstract Background Post-operative management of patients undergoing cardiac transplantation with an infected left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is unclear. Methods We retrospectively screened all adults with an LVAD who underwent cardiac transplantation at our institution from 2010 through 2018. We selected all cases of LVAD-specific and LVAD-related infections who were receiving antimicrobial therapy as initial treatment course or chronic suppression at the time of cardiac transplantation. Non-LVAD infections, superficial driveline-infection, or concurrent use of right ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation device were excluded. Results A total of 54 cases met study criteria with 18/54 (33.6%) classified as LVAD- specific or related infections and 36/54 (66.6%) as non-infected. Cases of LVAD-infection had a higher median Charlson Comorbidity Index score at the time of transplantation compared to non-infected cases (P=.005). Of the 18 cases of infection, 13/18 (72.2%) were classified as LVAD-specific and 5/18 (27.8%) as LVAD-related. A total of 9/13 (69.2%) cases had proven LVAD-specific infections. Antimicrobial therapy was extended post-transplant to treat preceding LVAD-specific infection in all nine cases (9/13, 69.2%) with a median duration of 14 days (IQR 14-28). Following LVAD removal, antimicrobial treatment was not continued for preceding LVAD-related infections. Conclusions Patients with an LVAD-specific infection were treated with two weeks of pathogen-directed therapy post heart transplant without any relapses. For those without LVAD-specific infection or uncomplicated LVAD-related bacteremia who had completed antimicrobial therapy pre-transplant, antibiotics were discontinued after standard peri-operative prophylaxis and no relapses were observed.

Abstract Background Infective endocarditis (IE) is the most feared complication of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB). Transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) is generally recommended for all patients with SAB; however, supporting data for this are limited. We previously developed a scoring system, “PREDICT,” that quantifies the risk of IE and identifies patients who would most benefit most from undergoing TEE. The current prospective investigation aims to validate this score. Methods We prospectively screened all consecutive adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with SAB at 3 Mayo Clinic sites between January 2015 and March 2017. Results Of 220 patients screened, 199 with SAB met study criteria and were included in the investigation. Of them, 23 (11.6%) patients were diagnosed with definite IE within 12 weeks of initial presentation based on modified Duke’s criteria. Using the previously derived PREDICT model, the day 1 score of ≥4 had a sensitivity of 30.4% and a specificity of 93.8%, whereas a day 5 score of ≤2 had a sensitivity and negative-predictive value of 100%. Additional factors including surgery or invasive procedure in the past 30 days, prosthetic heart valve, and higher number of positive blood culture bottles in the first set of cultures were associated with increased risk of IE independent of the day 5 risk score. Conclusions We validated the previously developed PREDICT scoring tools for stratifying risk of IE, and the need for undergoing a TEE, among cases of SAB. We also identified other factors with predictive potential, although larger prospective studies are needed to further evaluate possible enhancements to the current scoring system.

Objective Bioprosthetic valves are being used with increased frequency for valve replacement, with controversy regarding risk:benefit ratio compared with mechanical valves in younger patients. However, prior studies have been too small to provide comparative estimates of less common but serious adverse events such as infective endocarditis. We aimed to compare the incidence of infective endocarditis between bioprosthetic valves and mechanical valves. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to April 2018 for studies comparing left-sided aortic and mitral bioprosthetic to mechanical valves for randomised trials or observational studies with propensity matching. We used random-effects model for our meta-analysis. Our primary outcome of interest was the rate of infective endocarditis at follow-up. Results 13 comparison groups with 43 941 patients were included. Mean age was 59±7 years with a mean follow-up of 10.4±5.0 years. Patients with bioprosthetic valves had a higher risk of infective endocarditis compared with patients receiving mechanical valves (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.88, p<0.001) with an absolute risk reduction of 9 per 1000 (95% CI 6 to 14). Heterogeneity within the included studies was low (I2=0%). Exclusion of the study with maximum weight did not change the results of the analysis (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.17, p=0.006). A meta-regression of follow-up time on incidence of infective endocarditis was not statistically significant (p=0.788) indicating difference in follow-up times did not alter the pooled risk of infective endocarditis. Conclusions Bioprosthetic valves may be associated with a higher risk of infective endocarditis. These data should help guide the discussion when deciding between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in individual patients.

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.

Abstract Background Approximately one-third of cases of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection present as CIED lead infection. The precise transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) definition and characterization of “vegetation” associated with CIED lead infection remain unclear. Methods We identified a sample of 25 consecutive cases of CIED lead infection managed at our institution between January 2010 and December 2017. Cases of CIED lead infection were classified using standardized definitions. Similarly, a sample of 25 noninfected patients who underwent TEE that showed a defined lead echodensity during the study period was included as a control group. TEEs were reviewed by 2 independent echocardiologists who were blinded to all linked patient demographic, clinical, and microbiological information. Reported echocardiographic variables of the infected vs noninfected cases were compared, and the overall diagnostic performance was analyzed. Results Descriptions of lead echodensities were variable and there were no significant differences in median echodensity diameter or mobility between infected vs noninfected groups. Among infected cases, blinded echocardiogram reports by either reviewer correctly made a prediction of infection in 6 of 25 (24%). Interechocardiologist agreement was 68%. Sensitivity of blinded TEEs ranged from 31.5% to 37.5%. Conclusions Infectious vs noninfectious lead echodensities could not be reliably distinguished on the basis of size, mobility, and general shape descriptors obtained from a retrospective blinded TEE examination without knowledge of clinical and microbiological parameters. Therefore, a reanalysis of criteria used to support a diagnosis of CIED lead infection may be warranted.

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.

AbstractBackgroundThe American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for infective endocarditis (IE) management recommend end-of-therapy (EOT) echocardiography (ETE) to “establish a new baseline” and based on “expert opinion.”MethodsMedical records of IE patients treated between January 2005 and December 2011 were reviewed. Utilization of ETE and cumulative incidence of re-treatment with antimicrobials or cardiovascular surgery (re-Rx/CVS) within 1 year after EOT were evaluated.ResultsA total of 243 patients completed clinical follow-up at EOT and 170 at 1 year after EOT. One hundred seventy-seven of 243 (72.8%) underwent ETE, the majority (51.4%) transthoracic echocardiography. One hundred thirty-three of 177 (75.1%) were without new/worsened signs or symptoms (new/w-SSx). One hundred forty-one of 177 (79.7%) overall and 117/133 (87.9%) patients without new/w-SSx had no new ETE findings as compared with initial echocardiography. Among 36/177 (20.3%) with new ETE findings, 20/36 (55.6%) had new/w-SSx; ETE findings were more likely in patients with new/w-SSx (39.2% vs 8.3%; P &lt; 0.001) at EOT. Patients were at increased risk of re-Rx/CVS with either new ETE findings (hazard ratio [HR], 25.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.64–87.56; P &lt; .001) or new/w-SSx (HR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.87–9.95; P &lt; .001). The highest risk of re-Rx/CVS was in patients with both new/w-SSx and new ETE findings (HR, 45.94; 95% CI, 19.07–110.71). Conversely, only 7/187 (3.4%) patients without new/w-SSx who had an ETE required re-Rx/CVS.ConclusionsThe majority of patients without new/w-SSx at EOT will not have new ETE findings or need re-Rx/CVS within 1 year after EOT. EOT new/w-SSx is associated with new ETE findings and predicts the need for re-Rx/CVS. Further study is needed to determine whether patients without new/w-SSx need ETE.

Abstract Background Cardiac implantable electronic device-related infective endocarditis (CIED-IE) comprises 10–57% of total CIED infections. Patients with definite CIED-IE who fulfill both major modified Duke criteria have not been well characterized. Methods Data from the Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort, a prospective, multinational study of CIED infections were used to describe a subset of patients with CIED-IE who met both major Duke criteria for definite IE (bloodstream infection and intracardiac vegetations [VEG]). Results Of 433 patients with CIED infection, 144 (33.3%) had definite CIED-IE. The median age was 68 years and 77.1% were male. Twelve (8.3%) had past CIED infection. Seventy-seven patients (53.5%) had permanent pacemakers, 38 (26.4%) had implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and 29 (20.1%) had combination devices. The median time following the last device procedure was 550 days. CIED-IE was early in 60 patients (41.7%) and late in 84 (58.3%). Most patients presented with fever (77.8%) and sepsis (44.4%) with a median symptom duration of 7 days. On echocardiography, lead VEG was noted in 125 patients (86.8%) and valvular VEG in 54 patients (37.5%) with the tricuspid valve involved in 56.5%. On the basis of VEG location, there were 90 patients (62.5%) with isolated lead-associated IE (LAE), 19 patients (13.2%) with isolated valve-associated IE (VAE), and 35 patients (24.3%) with both (LVAE). All patients had positive blood cultures and 63/119 (52.9%) had positive lead cultures. The predominant organism in blood was Staphylococcus aureus (42.4%), followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci (20.1%). CIED removal occurred in 131 patients (91%). There were 25 deaths during the index hospitalization and 34 total deaths (24.3%) by 6 months. Mortality correlated with age >75 (P = 0.023) and sepsis on presentation (P = 0.052). Infecting organism, site of VEG, and device removal did not impact the risk of death. Conclusion Definite CIED-IE is relatively common. The majority of patients tend to have late-onset infection and often present with sepsis. S. aureus is the dominant organism causing definite CIED-IE. Isolated LAE occurs in 63% of patients. Older age and sepsis on admission are associated with higher mortality. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.