ArticleInfection2022
Enterococcus faecalis bacteremia, cardiac implantable electronic device, extraction, and the risk of recurrence.
Article in Infection, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection in Patients with Bloodstream Infection: Microbiologic Effect in the Era of Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography.Current cardiology reports · 2023Review
- Clinical Approach to Evaluation of Underlying Cardiac Device Infection in Patients Hospitalized with Bacteremia.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn all patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) and Enterococcus faecalis bacteremia (EfsB), endocarditis (IE) and CIED infection should be suspected. Guidelines recommend extraction of the CIED when CIED infection or IE is diagnosed. Whether extraction of the CIED should be done in other situations with EfsB is not known. We aimed to describe the management and outcome of patients with CIED and monomicrobial EfsB, in relation to extraction and recurrent EfsB.
methodsA population-based cohort of patients with monomicrobial EfsB from January 2014 to November 2020 was identified through microbiology registers in the Region Skåne, Sweden. Data on CIED and other clinical features were collected from medical records.
resultsAmong 1087 episodes of EfsB, 72 patients with CIED and monomicrobial EfsB were identified. Five of these patients were diagnosed with IE (7%), three of whom had echocardiographic changes on the CIED. Four CIED were extracted (6%). Recurrences were found in seven of 68 patients (10%) not subjected to extraction and in none of the extracted. In the group of patients without extraction, community acquisition and predisposition for IE were significantly associated with recurrent infection in univariate analyses. No infections involving the CIED were diagnosed during the recurrences.
conclusionsIn patient with monomicrobial EfsB, it seems safe to omit extraction if no structural changes are found on the CIED.
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.