Background: The incidence of infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patient outcomes are not fully known. Aim: To provide a contemporary assessment of the risk of CIEDs infection and associated clinical outcomes. Methods: In Italy, 18 centres enrolled all consecutive patients undergoing a CIED procedure and entered a 12-months follow-up. CIED infections, as well as a composite clinical event of infection or all-cause death were recorded. Results: A total of 2675 patients (64.3% male, age 78 (70–84)) were enrolled. During follow up 28 (1.1%) CIED infections and 132 (5%) deaths, with 152 (5.7%) composite clinical events were observed. At a multivariate analysis, the type of procedure (revision/upgrading/reimplantation) (OR: 4.08, 95% CI: 1.38–12.08) and diabetes (OR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.02–4.84) were found as main clinical factors associated to CIED infection. Both the PADIT score and the RI-AIAC Infection score were significantly associated with CIED infections, with the RI-AIAC infection score showing the strongest association (OR: 2.38, 95% CI: 1.60–3.55 for each point), with a c-index = 0.64 (0.52–0.75), p = 0.015. Regarding the occurrence of composite clinical events, the Kolek score, the Shariff score and the RI-AIAC Event score all predicted the outcome, with an AUC for the RI-AIAC Event score equal to 0.67 (0.63−0.71) p < 0.001. Conclusions: In this Italian nationwide cohort of patients, while the incidence of CIED infections was substantially low, the rate of the composite clinical outcome of infection or all-cause death was quite high and associated with several clinical factors depicting a more impaired clinical status.

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/12/1/91/pdf?version=1641897123

Incidence and Predictors of Infections and All-Cause Death in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: The Italian Nationwide RI-AIAC Registry

Infections are important complications of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), with a high prognostic impact. Several risk factors for CIED infections are known. Different studies have been published proposing different risk scores, in order to preoperatively assess the individual likelihood of developing a CIED infection. Among the different scores, large heterogeneity exists and there is no consensus or convergence on a single score finding large applicability in global practice. The aim of this review is to comprehensively present and analyze all the available risk scores for CIED infection, with particular regard to the evidence of comparison studies.

/pdf/risk-scores-for-cardiac-implantable-electronic-device-15dk7kkg.pdf

Risk Scores for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection: Which One to Believe In?

Brugada syndrome (BrS) is an inherited cardiac channelopathy first diagnosed in 1992 but still considered a challenging disease in terms of diagnosis, arrhythmia risk prediction, pathophysiology and management. Despite about 20% of individuals carrying pathogenic variants in the SCN5A gene, the identification of a polygenic origin for BrS and the potential role of common genetic variants provide the basis for applying polygenic risk scores for individual risk prediction. The pathophysiological mechanisms are still unclear, and the initial thinking of this syndrome as a primary electrical disease is evolving towards a partly structural disease. This review focuses on the main scientific advancements in the identification of biomarkers for diagnosis, risk stratification, pathophysiology and therapy of BrS. A comprehensive model that integrates clinical and genetic factors, comorbidities, age and gender, and perhaps environmental influences may provide the opportunity to enhance patients’ quality of life and improve the therapeutic approach.

Brugada Syndrome: More than a Monogenic Channelopathy

Background. The incidence of infections and death in patients implanted with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is not fully known yet. Aim. To describe the incidence of CIED-related infection and death, and their potential predictors in a contemporary cohort of CIED patients. Methods. All consecutive patients implanted with a CIED at our institution were prospectively enrolled. Follow-up visits were performed 2 weeks after CIED implantation for all patients, and then every 6 months for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)/cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients and every 12 months for pacemaker (PM) patients. The adjudication of CIED-related infections was performed by two independent investigators and potential disagreement was resolved by a senior investigator. Results. Between September 2016 and August 2020, a total of 838 patients were enrolled (34.6% female; median age 77 (69.6–83.6); median PADIT score 2 (2–4)). PMs were implanted in 569 (68%) patients and ICD/CRT in 269 (32%) patients. All patients had pre-implant antibiotic prophylaxis and 5.5% had an antibiotic-eluting envelope. Follow-up data were available for 832 (99.2%) patients. After a median follow-up of 42.3 (30.2–56.4) months, five (0.6%) patients had a CIED-related infection and 212 (25.5%) patients died. Using multivariate Cox regression analysis, end-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) requiring dialysis and therapy with corticosteroids was independently associated with a higher risk of infection (hazard ratio (HR): 14.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48–136.62 and HR: 14.71; 95% CI 1.53–141.53, respectively). Age (HR: 1.07; 95% CI 1.05–1.09), end-stage CKD requiring dialysis (HR: 6.13; 95% CI 3.38–11.13) and history of atrial fibrillation (HR: 1.47; 95% CI 1.12–1.94) were independently associated with all-cause death. Conclusions. In a contemporary cohort of CIED patients, mortality was substantially high and associated with clinical factors depicting a population at risk. On the other hand, the incidence of CIED-related infections was low.

/pdf/low-occurrence-of-infections-and-death-in-a-real-world-1cvvyo10.pdf

Low Occurrence of Infections and Death in a Real-World Cohort of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Background. His bundle pacing (HBP) has emerged as an alternative site to right ventricular pacing (RVP) with encouraging outcomes. To date, no study has investigated the systematic approach of three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping (3D-EAM) to guide HBP implantation and to evaluate myocardial activation timing. Furthermore, studies reporting a comprehensive assessment of the ventricular function, using myocardial work (MW) evaluation are lacking. Objectives. (1) To evaluate the systematic use of the 3D-EAM as a guide to HBP; (2) to assess the electrical and mechanical activations with high-density mapping, comparing spontaneous ventricular activation (SVA), HBP and RVP; (3) to assess the myocardial function through speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) and MW analysis in SVA, HBP and RVP. Methods. 3D-EAM was performed in consecutive patients undergoing HBP implantation with a low use of fluoroscopy. All patients were systematically evaluated with high-density mapping, MW and STE. Results. Fifteen patients were enrolled, of whom three had an implant failure (20%). RV activation time was not statistically different between SVA and HBP (103 vs. 104 ms, p = 0.969) but was significantly higher in RVP (133 ms, p = 0.011 vs. SVA and p = 0.001 vs HBP). Global constructive work was significantly lower during RVP (1191 mmHg%) than during SVA and HBP (1648 and 1505 mmHg%, p = 0.011 and p = 0.008, respectively) and did not differ between SVA and HBP (p = 0.075). Conclusions. 3D-EAM and MW evaluation showed that HBP was comparable to the physiological SVA in terms of activation time and cardiac performance. Compared to both SVA and HBP, RVP was associated with a worse activation timing and ventricular efficiency.

https://www.mdpi.com/2308-3425/9/11/377/pdf?version=1667395159

Three-Dimensional Electro-Anatomical Mapping and Myocardial Work Performance during Spontaneous Rhythm, His Bundle Pacing and Right Ventricular Pacing: The EMPATHY Study

Aims In patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) intervention, routine pre-procedure antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended. A more powerful antibiotic protocol has been suggested in patients at high risk of infection. Stratification of individual infective risk could guide the prophylaxis before CIED procedure. Methods and results Patients undergoing CIED surgery were stratified according to the Shariff score in low and high infective risk. Patients in the 'low-risk' group were treated with only two antibiotic administrations while patients in the 'high-risk' group were treated with a prolonged 9-day protocol, according to renal function and allergies. We followed-up patients for 250 days with clinical outpatient visit and electronic control of the CIED. As primary endpoint, we evaluated CIED-related infections. A total of 937 consecutive patients were enrolled, of whom 735 were stratified in the 'low-risk' group and 202 in the 'high-risk' group. Despite different risk profiles, CIED-related infection rate at 250 days was similar in the two groups (8/735 in 'low risk' vs. 4/202 in 'high risk', P = 0.32). At multivariate analysis, active neoplasia, haematoma, and reintervention were independently associated with CIED-related infection (HR 5.54, 10.77, and 12.15, respectively). Conclusion In a large cohort of patients undergoing CIED procedure, an antibiotic prophylaxis based on individual stratification of infective risk resulted in similar rate of infection between groups at high and low risk of CIED-related infection.

Antibiotic prophylaxis based on individual infective risk stratification in cardiac implantable electronic device: the PRACTICE study.

Novel SCN5A Variant Shows Multiple Phenotypic Expression in the Same Family.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Claudio Rapezzi

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Antibiotic prophylaxis based on individual infective risk stratification in cardiac implantable electronic device: the PRACTICE study.

Novel SCN5A Variant Shows Multiple Phenotypic Expression in the Same Family.