ArticleCureus2022
Rate of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device-Related Infection at a Tertiary Hospital in Saudi Arabia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections in Saudi Arabia: Incidence, Timing, Causative Organisms, and Outcomes - A Multicenter Study.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2025Article
- Advances in Clinical Cardiology 2022: A Summary of Key Clinical Trials.Advances in therapy · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are long-term cardiac treatments that address a variety of cardiac diseases. In the recent years, a steady growth has been noticed in CIEDs, mainly due to expanding indications for their usage. Possible device-related infection, whether pocket or systemic, which leads to high morbidity and mortality, is one of the most worrying complications. In addition, there are limited studies conducted on the topic of CIED infection rate and their clinical presentation both regionally and locally. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the medical records of all patients with CIEDs who presented to our medical center (implanted, followed up, or referred to our hospital) between January 2016 and January 2019.The medical records were extracted from the BestCare electronic medical records system (ezCaretech Co, Seoul, Korea). All consecutive patients were included as we had no exclusion criteria. Results During the three years of the study period, a total of 612 patients with CIEDs were identified at our medical center. Among this cohort, 436 subjects (71.2%) were male and 176 (28.8%) were female. Thirty-four patients experienced device-related infections from among the total patient population (n = 612) who presented with CIEDs between January 2016 and January 2019, for a total rate of 5.6%. Of the infected patients, 29 (85%) presented with local infections and five (15%) presented with systemic infections. Conclusion The infection rate of 5.6% observed in this study was higher than expected. Therefore, we conclude that action should be taken to reduce infection rates at our medical center to at least that seen in prior studies or below that, if possible. Moreover, we found that CIED infections were often caused by
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.