ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2022
Risk profiles and outcomes of patients receiving antibacterial cardiovascular implantable electronic device envelopes: A retrospective analysis.
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Antimicrobial Envelopes in Preventing Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Korean circulation journal · 2026Article
- Addressing Complications in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: A Guideline to Prevention of CIED Infection.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the Bioinductive Effects of a Novel Antibiotic Eluting Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Envelope.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Preclinical and clinical evaluation of ECM bioenvelopes for preventing CIED pocket complications.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are implanted in an increasing number of patients each year, which has led to an increase in the risk of CIED infection. Antibacterial CIED envelopes locally deliver antibiotics to the implant site over a short-term period and have been shown to reduce the risk of implant site infection. These envelopes are derived from either biologic or non-biologic materials. There is a paucity of data examining patient risk profiles and outcomes from using these envelope materials in the clinical setting and comparing these results to patients receiving no envelope with their CIED implantation.
aimTo evaluate risk profiles and outcomes of patients who underwent CIED procedures with an antibacterial envelope or no envelope.
methodsAfter obtaining Internal Review Board approval, the records of consecutive patients who underwent a CIED implantation procedure by a single physician between March 2017 and December 2019 were retrospectively collected from our hospital. A total of 248 patients within this period were identified and reviewed through 12 mo of follow up. The CIED procedures used either no envelope (
resultsOn average, patients who received any envelope (biologic or non-biologic) were younger (70.7 ± 14.0
conclusionCIED infection rates for biologic and non-biologic antibacterial envelopes are similar. Antibacterial envelopes may benefit patients who are higher risk for infection, however additional studies are warranted to confirm this.
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.