Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38667735›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2024

Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection after Early versus Delayed Lead Repositioning.

Noemi Schvartz, Arian Haidary, Reza Wakili, Florian Hecker, Jana Kupusovic, Elod-Janos Zsigmond, Marton Miklos, Laszlo Saghy, Tamas Szili-Torok, Julia W Erath and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Noemi SchvartzCardiology Center/Cardiac Electrophysiology Division, Internal Medicine Clinic, University of Szeged, 6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Arian HaidaryDepartment of Cardiology, Division of Clinical Electrophysiology, Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt, 60596 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Reza WakiliDepartment of Cardiology, Division of Clinical Electrophysiology, Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt, 60596 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Florian HeckerDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt, 60596 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Jana KupusovicDepartment of Cardiology, Division of Clinical Electrophysiology, Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt, 60596 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7661-4565
Elod-Janos ZsigmondDoctoral School of Clinical Medicine, University of Szeged, 6725 Szeged, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-6487-3690
Marton MiklosCardiology Center/Cardiac Electrophysiology Division, Internal Medicine Clinic, University of Szeged, 6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Laszlo SaghyCardiology Center/Cardiac Electrophysiology Division, Internal Medicine Clinic, University of Szeged, 6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Tamas Szili-TorokCardiology Center/Cardiac Electrophysiology Division, Internal Medicine Clinic, University of Szeged, 6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Julia W ErathDepartment of Cardiology, Division of Clinical Electrophysiology, Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt, 60596 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Mate VamosCardiology Center/Cardiac Electrophysiology Division, Internal Medicine Clinic, University of Szeged, 6725 Szeged, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-1611-4443
University of Szeged · HUGoethe University Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Early reintervention increases the risk of infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Some operators therefore delay lead repositioning in the case of dislocation by weeks; however, there is no evidence to support this practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of reoperation on infection risk. (2) Methods: The data from consecutive patients undergoing lead repositioning in two European referral centers were retrospectively analyzed. The odds ratio (OR) of CIED infection in the first year was compared among patients undergoing early (≤1 week) vs. delayed (>1 week to 1 year) reoperation. (3) Results: Out of 249 patients requiring CIED reintervention, 85 patients (34%) underwent an early (median 2 days) and 164 (66%) underwent a delayed lead revision (median 53 days). A total of nine (3.6%) wound/device infections were identified. The risk of infection was numerically lower in the early (1.2%) vs. delayed (4.9%) intervention group yielding no statistically significant difference, even after adjustment for typical risk factors for CIED infection (adjusted OR = 0.264, 95% CI 0.032-2.179,

Indexed as

cardiac implantable electronic deviceCIEDCRTdislodgementextractionICDinfectionleadpacemakerreinterventionreoperation

Identifiers

PMID38667735
PMCPMC11049932
OpenAlexW4394611768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.