SynthesisPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2026
Antimicrobial Pocket Flush and Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection: Meta-Analysis of Real-World Studies.
Synthesis in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical guidelines do not recommend the routine rinsing of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) with antimicrobials before pocket closure("antimicrobial pocket flush.") However, despite current recommendations and a lack of evidence regarding the utility of this practice for reducing CIED infections, the antimicrobial pocket flush is still commonly employed. Clarifying the true value of this technique is important for supporting evidence-based practice and avoiding unnecessary antimicrobial use. Therefore, we performed meta-analysis of observational studies to determine the effectiveness of this practice in preventing CIED infections.
methodsWe performed a systematic literature search for observational human studies investigating the effectiveness of employing the antimicrobial pocket flush to prevent CIED infection. A random effects meta-analysis was performed. Effectiveness was estimated with the study-level definitions of CIED infection. We performed subgroup analysis by type of antimicrobial-antiseptic or antibiotic.
resultsA total of seven studies including 12,283 patients were analyzed. Over half of the CIED implantation procedures (61.5%) included the antimicrobial pocket flush, and between 8.4% and 85% of the implantations were revision procedures. Studies used various antimicrobials for pocket flush, and definitions of CIED infection varied. Overall infection rates ranged from 0.5%-1.5%. CIED infection rates did not differ significantly between procedures performed with versus without antimicrobial pocket flush (0.8% vs. 1.1%; relative risk 0.80; 95% confidence interval 0.39-1.63; p = 0.54). There was no difference in the subgroup analysis by antiseptic or antibiotic use.
conclusionOur results suggest that the antimicrobial pocket flush provides no benefit in preventing CIED infection, reinforcing the current guidelines that do not support its routine use.
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.