George, Merit P.

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.

AbstractBackgroundCulture‐negative (CN) cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections represent a significant management challenge for clinicians with no specific guidelines addressing this subgroup of patients. The aim of the current investigation is to report our institutional experience of CN CIED infections and propose a systematic approach to diagnostic evaluation and management of these complicated cases based on our observations.MethodsWe retrospectively screened all CIED infection cases at Mayo Clinic from 2005 through 2017. Using standardized criteria to define significant microbial growth, all patients with positive blood or pocket/device cultures were excluded.ResultsA total of 835 cases of CIED infection were screened, and of these, 47 (6%) met CN‐CIED infection criteria. Majority of patients (77%) in this cohort had received antimicrobial therapy prior to device cultures with a median duration of 8 days. The most common presentation was device pocket infection (81%). All patients underwent device removal. Route of antibiotics was switched from oral to parenteral and spectrum of activity expanded from initial therapy in 23% of patients despite negative cultures. Majority of patients (80%) were dismissed on parenteral therapy. Adverse events attributed to intravenous antibiotic therapy were documented in 63% of the cases. No recurrence was reported and 6‐month survival was 94.8%.ConclusionsPocket and device cultures in suspected CIED infections may be negative due to preextraction oral antibiotics. However, frequently these patients are managed with broad‐spectrum parenteral therapy postextraction.

Background: Previous studies have suggested that having a comorbid personality disorder (PD) along with major depression is associated with poorer depression outcomes relative to those without comorbid PD. However, few studies have examined the influence of specific PD cluster types. The purpose of the current study is to compare depression outcomes between cluster A, cluster B, and cluster C PD patients treated within a collaborative care management (CCM), relative to CCM patients without a PD diagnosis. The overarching goal was to identify cluster types that might confer a worse clinical prognosis. Methods: This retrospective chart review study examined 2826 adult patients with depression enrolled in CCM. The cohort was divided into 4 groups based on the presence of a comorbid PD diagnosis (cluster A/nonspecified, cluster B, cluster C, or no PD). Baseline clinical and demographic variables, along with 6-month follow-up Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) scores were obtained for all groups. Depression remission was defined as a PHQ-9 score <5 at 6 months, and persistent depressive symptoms (PDS) was defined as a PHQ-9 score ≥10 at 6 months. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were determined for both remission and PDS using logistic regression modeling for the 6-month PHQ-9 outcome, while retaining all study variables. Results: A total of 59 patients (2.1%) had a cluster A or nonspecified PD diagnosis, 122 patients (4.3%) had a cluster B diagnosis, 35 patients (1.2%) had a cluster C diagnosis, and 2610 patients (92.4%) did not have any PD diagnosis. The presence of a cluster A/nonspecified PD diagnosis was associated with a 62% lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.20-0.70). The presence of a cluster B PD diagnosis was associated with a 71% lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.18-0.47). Conversely, having a cluster C diagnosis was not associated with a significantly lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.42-1.65). Increased odds of having PDS at 6-month follow-up were seen with cluster A/nonspecified PD patients (AOR = 3.35; 95% CI 1.92-5.84) as well as cluster B patients (AOR = 3.66; 95% CI 2.45-5.47). However, cluster C patents did not have significantly increased odds of experiencing persistent depressive symptoms at 6-month follow-up (AOR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.45-2.00). Conclusions: Out of the 3 clusters, the presence of a cluster B PD diagnosis was most significantly associated with poorer depression outcomes at 6-month follow-up, including reduced remission rates and increased risk for PDS. The cluster A/nonspecified PD group also showed poor outcomes; however, the heterogeneity of this subgroup with regard to PD features must be noted. The development of novel targeted interventions for at-risk clusters may be warranted in order to improve outcomes of these patients within the CCM model of care.