Adherence to diagnostic and therapeutic practice guidelines for suspected cardiac implantable electronic device infections
Guillaume De Ciancio, Marie-Line Erpelding, Laura Filippetti, François Goehringer, Hugues Blangy, Olivier Huttin, Nelly Agrinier, Yves Juillière, Nicolas Sadoul, Christine Selton-Suty, Guillaume De Ciancio, Marie-Line Erpelding, Laura Filippetti, François Goehringer, Hugues Blangy, Olivier Huttin, Nelly Agrinier, Yves Juillière, Nicolas Sadoul, Christine Selton-Suty
Abstract
Background: Despite guidelines describing the optimal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for patients with suspected cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections, their management is often challenging.
Aims: To describe our diagnostic and therapeutic practices for suspected CIED infection, and to compare them with European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) guidelines.
Methods: Patients hospitalized in the tertiary care Nancy University Hospital for suspected CIED infection from 2014 to 2019 were included retrospectively. We applied the EHRA classification of CIED infection, and compared diagnostic and therapeutic management with the EHRA guidelines.
Results: Among 184 patients (mean age 72.3±12.4 years), 137 had a proven infection of the lead (by transthoracic echocardiography/transoesophageal echocardiography, 18F-fluorodesoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography or positive culture of the lead) or an isolated pocket infection without proof of lead infection, and 47 had no proof of CIED infection. According to the EHRA classification, CIED infection was considered as definite in 145 patients and possible in 31 and was excluded in eight patients. Regarding recommended diagnostic procedures, blood cultures were performed in 90.8%, transthoracic echocardiography in 97.8%, transoesophageal echocardiography in 85.9%, 18F-fluorodesoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in 50.5% and imaging for embolisms in 78.3% of the patients. Compared with therapeutic recommendations for the 145 cases of definite CIED infection, device removal was performed in 96 patients (66.2%) and antibiotic therapy was prescribed in 130 (89.7%), with a duration equal to or longer than that recommended in 105 (72.4%) of the patients.
Conclusion: This study underlines the difficulties in following theoretical guidelines in daily practice, where both technical and human considerations interfere with their strict appliance.
Keywords: Adherence to guidelines; Adhésion aux recommandations; Cardiac implantable electronic device; Device removal; Défibrillateur automatique implantable; Endocardite infectieuse; Extraction; Infection; Infective endocarditis.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Source: PubMed