ArticleHeart rhythm O22024
Inflammatory biomarkers as predictors of systemic vs isolated pocket infection in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2024. 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.
- Beyond the Pocket: Clinical, Routine Biomarker, and Microbiological Associations with Systemic Versus Localized Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Routine Inflammation-Haemostasis Panel in Transvenous Lead Extraction: An Exploratory Prospective Single-Centre Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical profile and outcomes among patients with cardiac implantable electronic device presenting as isolated pocket infection, pocket-related infective endocarditis, or lead-related infective endocarditis.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 · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are a common indication for device extraction. Early diagnosis and complete system removal are crucial to reduce morbidity and mortality. The lack of clear infectious symptoms makes the diagnosis of pocket infections challenging and may delay referral for extraction. Objective: We aimed to determine if inflammatory biomarkers can help diagnose CIED isolated pocket infection. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction for CIED infection at the University of California San Diego from 2012 to 2022 (N = 156). Patients were classified as systemic infection (n = 88) or isolated pocket infection (n = 68). Prospectively collected preoperative procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein, and white blood cell count were compared between groups. Results: Pairwise comparisons revealed that the systemic infection group had a higher PCT than the control group ( Conclusion: In patients diagnosed with CIED infections requiring extraction, inflammatory biomarkers were not elevated in isolated pocket infection. Inflammatory markers are not predictive of the diagnosis of pocket infections, which ultimately requires a high level of clinical suspicion.
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.