Observational studyBMJ open2025
Results from a national observational survey of UK cardiologists on antibiotic envelope use during cardiac electronic device implantation.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contemporary practice about cardiac implantable electronic device infections prevention: A French multicenter survey.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Cardiac implantable electronic device upgrades and downgrades: a Clinical Consensus Statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Association (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to conduct a survey of cardiac device implanting physicians to report utilisation trends, barriers and attitudes around the use of antibiotic envelope utilisation in the UK.
designAn online survey devised by an implanting physician focus group, which included a mixture of multiple-choice and open text questions, was sent via email to UK-based physicians.
participants500 implanting physicians across 159 sites in the UK, identified from the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Database.
resultsResponses were received from 117 participants (79% of whom were consultant cardiologists). The TYRX absorbable antibiotic envelope was most commonly used for device upgrades, compared with de novo pacemakers, cardiac resynchronisation therapy-pacemakers or -defibrillators (CRT-P/CRT-D) implants and generator replacements. A limited number (13%) of respondents used the PADIT (Prevention Of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial) score to guide their use of TYRX while 31% of respondents were unaware of the score. Several risk factors (early pocket re-intervention, previous device infection and procedural duration) were reported as the most important factors in consideration of TYRX use; however, these are not included in the PADIT score. Key barriers to adoption included cost-effectiveness and lack of compelling clinical data and guidelines. Technical concerns were reported by 27% of respondents, translating into reduced utilisation in clinical practice.
conclusionThis survey provides a snapshot of antibiotic envelope utilisation across device implanters in the UK. The PADIT score does not reflect the key decision-making factors reported by our surveyed cohort. There remains significant variation in patient selection and practical techniques as well as uncertainty surrounding the clinical evidence and cost-effectiveness of the TYRX envelope.
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.