Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40519051›Full record

SynthesisEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2025

Cost-effectiveness of an intraoperative antibacterial envelope in preventing cardiac implantable device-associated infections: a systematic review.

Sathvika Mudigonda, Ethan Hagarty, Lucy Lei, Elissa Rennert-May, Jacqueline Joza, Derek V Exner, Jason Andrade, Satish R Raj, Derek S Chew

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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, 2025. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  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

9 authors.

Sathvika MudigondaDepartment of Cardiac Sciences, Libin Cardiovascular Institute, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4Z6.
Ethan HagartyDepartment of Cardiac Sciences, Libin Cardiovascular Institute, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4Z6.ORCID 0009-0000-5637-8967
Lucy LeiDepartment of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Bc, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4036-7697
Elissa Rennert-MayDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4Z6.ORCID 0000-0001-9884-6423
Jacqueline JozaDepartment of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0956-688X
Derek V ExnerDepartment of Cardiac Sciences, Libin Cardiovascular Institute, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4Z6.
Jason AndradeDepartment of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Bc, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8493-5123
Satish R RajDepartment of Cardiac Sciences, Libin Cardiovascular Institute, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4Z6.ORCID 0000-0002-5890-3785
Derek S ChewDepartment of Cardiac Sciences, Libin Cardiovascular Institute, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4Z6.ORCID 0000-0003-3539-7485

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsIntraoperative use of an antibacterial envelope during surgery for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery reduces infection risk at increased procedural costs. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the published economic literature on the cost-effectiveness of the antibacterial envelope. METHODS AND

resultsA systematic review of the published literature was conducted to identify economic evaluations (i.e. cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit studies) comparing the antibacterial envelope compared with standard of care in preventing post-operative CIED infection. Systematic review best practices were followed, and study quality was assessed. Of 142 unique citations, 7 studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. All cost-effectiveness studies were conducted from the healthcare payer perspective of high-income countries. The base case analysis of most economic studies (5/7) reported a cost per quality-adjusted life year gained that exceeded country-specific societal thresholds for good value in healthcare. Cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on the baseline infection risk. That is, at current pricing, the antibacterial envelope may be cost-effective at base infection rates of greater than 3%, and cost-savings at infection rates that exceed 6%.

conclusionRoutine use of an antibacterial envelope in patients undergoing CIED procedures (implantation or revision) is unlikely to be cost-effective except among those at high risk for post-operative infection. Individualized risk assessment may help guide efficient and value-based use of this technology.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic ProphylaxisDefibrillators, ImplantablePacemaker, ArtificialProsthesis-Related InfectionsCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CostsHumansIntraoperative CareQuality-Adjusted Life YearsTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial envelopeCardiac implantable electronic devicesComplicationsCost-EffectivenessHealth economicsInfection

Identifiers

PMID40519051
PMCPMC12271728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.