ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2021
Prevalence and management of driveline infections in mechanical circulatory support - a single center analysis.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Driveline Infections in Durable LVAD Support: Risk Factors, Microbiology, and Resistance Patterns from a Large Cohort.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Infections in mechanical circulatory support.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Oritavancin in LVAD related infections - a chance for shortening therapy and improving outcomes.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Local Infections Associated with Ventricular Assist Devices: Materials-Related Challenges and Emerging Solutions.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Comparative Analysis of Multi-Organ Failure Trajectories Following Heart Transplantation and HeartMate 3 Implantation: A 1-Year Postprocedural Follow-Up Study Utilizing the MELD-XI Scale.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Driveline Relocation and Vacuum-Assisted Closure for Ventricular Assist Device Driveline Infections.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Impact of extracellular matrix scaffold on driveline infection rate in patients with left ventricular assist devices.JTCVS open · 2025Article
- Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in left ventricular assist device and heart transplant recipients: a mini-review.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Article
- Daptomycin Pharmacokinetics in Blood and Wound Fluid in Critical Ill Patients with Left Ventricle Assist Devices.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Concept, Design, and Early Prototyping of a Low-Cost, Minimally Invasive, Fully Implantable Left Ventricular Assist Device.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDriveline infections in continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (cf-LVAD) remain the most common adverse event. This single-center retrospective study investigated the risk factors, prevalence and management of driveline infections.
methodsPatients treated after cf-LVAD implantation from December 2014 to January 2020 were enrolled. Baseline data were collected and potential risk factors were elaborated. The multi-modal treatment was based on antibiotic therapy, daily wound care, surgical driveline reposition, and heart transplantation. Time of infection development, freedom of reinfection, freedom of heart transplantation, and death in the follow-up time were investigated.
resultsOf 75 observed patients, 26 (34.7%) developed a driveline infection. The mean time from implantation to infection diagnosis was 463 (±399; range, 35-1400) days. The most common pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (n = 15, 60%). First-line therapy was based on antibiotics, with a primary success rate of 27%. The majority of patients (n = 19; 73.1%) were treated with surgical reposition after initial antibiotic therapy. During the follow-up time of 569 (±506; range 32-2093) days, the reinfection freedom after surgical transposition was 57.9%. Heart transplantation was performed in eight patients due to resistant infection. The overall mortality for driveline infection was 11.5%.
conclusionsDriveline infections are frequent in patients with implanted cf-LVAD, and treatment does not efficiently avoid reinfection, leading to moderate mortality rates. Only about a quarter of the infected patients were cured with antibiotics alone. Surgical driveline reposition is a reasonable treatment option and does not preclude subsequent heart transplantation due to limited reinfection freedom.
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.