Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38939375›Full record

ArticleJACC. Advances2024

Contemporary Management of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection: The American College of Cardiology COGNITO Survey.

Dhanunjaya R Lakkireddy, Archana Rao, Paul Theriot, Douglas Darden, Naga Venkata K Pothineni, Rashmi Ram, Yu-Rong Gao, Jim W Cheung, Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Impact of hospital lead extraction volume on management of cardiac implantable electronic device-associated 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 · 2024
    Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Dhanunjaya R LakkireddyKansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, HCA Midwest, Overland Park, Kansas, USA.
Archana RaoDepartment of Cardiology, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Paul TheriotEnterprise Content & Digital Strategy Division, American College of Cardiology, Washington, DC, USA.
Douglas DardenKansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, HCA Midwest, Overland Park, Kansas, USA.
Naga Venkata K PothineniKansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, HCA Midwest, Overland Park, Kansas, USA.
Rashmi RamImage Guided Therapy, Philips North American, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA.
Yu-Rong GaoImage Guided Therapy, Philips North American, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA.
Jim W CheungDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, New York, USA.
Ulrika Birgersdotter-GreenDivision of Cardiology, University of California-San Diego Health System, San Diego, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) infection remains a serious complication, causing increased morbidity and mortality. Early recognition and escalation to definitive therapy including extraction of the infected device often pose challenges. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess U.S.-based physicians current practices in diagnosing and managing CIED infections and explore potential extraction barriers. Methods: An observational survey was performed by the American College of Cardiology including U.S. physicians managing CIEDs from February to March 2022. Sampling techniques and screener questions determined eligibility. The survey featured questions on knowledge and experience with CIED infection patients and case scenarios. Results: Of 387 physicians completing the survey (20% response rate), 49% indicated familiarity with current guidelines regarding CIED infection. Electrophysiologists (EPs) (91%) were more familiar with these guidelines, compared to non-EP cardiologists (29%) and primary care physicians (23%). Only 30% of physicians specified that their institution had guideline-based protocols in place for managing patients with CIED infection. When presented with pocket infection cases, approximately 89% of EPs and 50% of non-EP cardiologists would follow guideline recommendation to do complete CIED system removal, while 70% of primary care physicians did not recommend guideline-directed treatment. Conclusions: There are gaps in familiarity of guidelines as well as the knowledge in practical management of CIED infection with non-extracting physicians. Most institutions lack a definite pathway. Addressing discrepancies, including guideline education and streamlining care or referral pathways, will be a key factor to bridging the gap and improving CIED infection patient outcomes.

Indexed as

cardiac implantable electronic devicesextractionguidelinesinfectionpocket infection

Identifiers

PMID38939375
PMCPMC11198053

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.