ArticleScientific reports2026
Delphi consensus recommendations for preventing and treating cardiac implantable electronic device infections beyond current guidelines.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) pose significant clinical challenges due to their life-threatening nature and complex management. Recent advancements in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment have been driven by landmark trials such as PADIT and WRAP-IT, alongside evolving diagnostic tools like [18 F]FDG PET/CT and updated diagnostic criteria (e.g., 2023 Duke-ISCVID). A combination of well-established approaches—such as leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous ICDs, and an antibiotic-eluting envelope—and evolving adjunctive strategies, including a taurolidine-containing antimicrobial agent, incision drapes, fascial plane blocks or double gloving, have broadened the spectrum of options to reduce and potentially mitigate the risk of CIED infection. While devices like leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous ICDs, and antibiotic envelopes are supported by randomized controlled trials, adjunctive measures such as taurolidine rely predominantly on observational data. To address this variation in the strength of available evidence, a modified Delphi consensus process was conducted, bringing together cardiologists and infectious disease experts to define experience-based best practices in areas where current guidelines offer limited or no specific recommendations. The consensus achieved strong agreement (≥ 80%) on key strategies, including mandatory double-gloving to reduce contamination, the use of validated risk models (e.g., PADIT, BLISTER) for tailored infection prevention employing an antibiotic eluting envelope, multidisciplinary decision-making for non-extractable infections and the use of taurolidine solutions as adjuncts to prevent CIED infection. Moderate consensus (60–79%) supported non-delayed reimplantation after lead-related endocarditis and single-session reimplantation in pacing-dependent patients under specific circumstances. However, no consensus was reached on mandating a minimum annual procedural volume (≥ 500 cases) for CIED centers, reflecting concerns about access and operator expertise. The findings emphasize the importance of personalized risk stratification, procedural innovations, and multidisciplinary collaboration in optimizing CIED infection outcomes. Areas requiring further research include the efficacy of iodophor-impregnated drapes, fascial plane blocks, and taurolidine solutions. This consensus provides a pragmatic framework for clinicians, highlighting evidence-informed strategies to mitigate infection risks and improve care for patients undergoing CIED procedures.
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.