ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Infections after high-voltage cardiac implantable electronic device replacements.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Device infection is the most worrisome complication after replacement of cardiac implantable electronic devices, with the utmost risk among patients with replacement of a high-voltage device. Objective: This study sought to examine periprocedural approaches and investigate the contemporary infection rates after replacement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator device in 2 large university hospitals. Methods: All transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator replacements (n = 298) performed in 2021-2023 at Helsinki University Hospital and Sahlgrenska University Hospital were included in this retrospective analysis. Baseline, clinical, and procedural data were extracted from electronic medical records, and the infection risk was assessed using the Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial score. Results: During a mean follow-up of 24.6 ± 10.4 months after generator replacement, 3 procedure-related infections were documented, corresponding to an infection rate of 1.0%. All patients received procedural antibiotic prophylaxis, and an antibacterial envelope was used in 51.3% of the patients. There was no difference in the infection rate between the centers (0.95% vs 1.15%), although the use of an antimicrobial envelope was more common at Helsinki University Hospital than Sahlgrenska University Hospital (84.8% vs 44.2%) among high-risk patients (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial score ≥6). Conclusion: The incidence of procedure-related infections after high-voltage cardiac implantable electronic device replacement can be maintained at a low level when guideline-based infection prevention measures are rigorously applied.
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.