ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2019
Predictors of Bloodstream Infection in Patients Presenting With Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Pocket Infection.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infections: A Contemporary Review.Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2024Review
- Multimodality Imaging Diagnosis in Infective Endocarditis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Bacteremia due to non-Heart rhythm O2 · 2023Article
- Treatment and Prevention of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) Infections.CJC open · 2022Review
- Imaging of Cardiac Device-Related Infection.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerator pocket infection is the most frequent presentation of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. We aim to identify predictors of underlying bloodstream infection (BSI) in patients presenting with CIED pocket infection.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed all adults with CIED pocket infection cared for at our institution from January 2005 through January 2016. The CIED pocket infection cases were then subclassified as with or without associated BSI. Variables with
resultsWe screened 429 cases of CIED infection, and 95 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 68 cases (71.6%) were categorized as non-BSI and 27 (28.4%) as BSI. There were no statistically significant differences in patient comorbid conditions or device characteristics between the 2 groups. In multivariable analysis, the presence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria (tachycardia, tachypnea, fever or hypothermia, and leukocytosis or leukopenia) and hypotension were independent predictors of underlying BSI in patients presenting with CIED pocket infection. Overall, patients in the non-BSI group who did not receive pre-extraction antibiotics had a higher frequency of positive intraoperative pocket/device cultures than those with pre-extraction antibiotic exposure (79.4% vs 58.6%;
conclusionsPatients with CIED pocket infection who meet systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and/or are hypotensive at admission are more likely to have underlying BSI and should be started on empiric antibiotics after blood cultures are obtained. If these features are absent, it may be reasonable to withhold empiric antibiotics to optimize yield of pocket/device cultures during extraction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.