ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2024
Device infection in patients undergoing pacemaker or defibrillator surgery: risk stratification using the PADIT score.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Routine Inflammation-Haemostasis Panel in Transvenous Lead Extraction: An Exploratory Prospective Single-Centre Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Simple programming, significant impact: Pacemaker Sleep Function extends device longevity.HeartRhythm case reports · 2026Article
- Validation of the PADIT (prevention of arrhythmia device infection trial) risk score for infection and infection subtypes.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of an Absorbable Antibacterial Envelope for Infection Control in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Procedures in Spain.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Erratum: Cost-Effectiveness of an Absorbable Antibacterial Envelope for Infection Control in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Procedures in Spain.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Recurrent rash over a cardiac implantable electronic device: A rare case of antibacterial envelope hypersensitivity.HeartRhythm case reports · 2025Article
- Continuous, In Situ Targeted, Ultrahigh-Concentration Antibiotics for Infections from Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: The First Taiwan Case Series.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2025Article
- Review
- Prevention and Risk Assessment of Cardiac Device Infections in Clinical Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
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
backgroundThe use of an antibacterial envelope is cost-effective for patients at high risk of developing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. The identification of these high-risk patients may be facilitated using a clinical risk score. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the PADIT score for identifying high-risk patients in patients undergoing a CIED procedure in a tertiary academic center.
methodsThis was a retrospective single-center study of consecutive patients undergoing a CIED procedure between January 2016 and November 2021. Patients who received an antibacterial envelope were excluded from this study. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for a CIED infection in the first year after the procedure.
resultsA total of 2333 CIED procedures were performed in the study period (mean age 61.6 ± 16.3 years, male sex 64.5%, previous CIED infection 1.7%, immunocompromised 5.4%). The median PADIT score was 4 (interquartile range, 2-6). CIED infection occurred in 10 patients (0.43%). The PADIT score had good discrimination in predicting major CIED infection (C-statistic 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 0.86, P = 0.03). Using an optimal PADIT score cut-off value of 7, the risk of CIED infection was higher in the patients with a PADIT score of ≥ 7 in comparison to those with a lower PADIT score (1.23% vs. 0.26%, P = 0.02; odds ratio 4.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 16.6, P = 0.01).
conclusionsThe PADIT score is a clinically useful score for identifying patients at high risk of developing CIED infection. The use of an antibacterial envelope in these high-risk patients may be cost-effective.
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.