ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2026
An urgent call for quality measures for cardiac implantable electronic device infections in the United States.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 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
Infection is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Over 400,000 CIEDs are placed annually in the United States with an infection rate of approximately 1-2% in the first 12 months after implantation. In 2010, the American Heart Association provided a class I recommendation for complete system removal in all cases of endovascular CIED-I or pocket infection. Retrospective studies have shown that CIED removal is associated with improved outcomes, and prompt CIED removal within 7 days of confirmed infection is associated with lower mortality at 1-year compared to extraction after 7 days. Despite these strong recommendations and existing evidence, data demonstrates that ∼80% of patients with CIED-I do not undergo device extraction. To address this gap, we advocate for creation of an electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that would create incentives for hospitals to provide efficient, guideline-concordant care, analogous to existing eCQMs for other conditions, such as ST elevation myocardial infarctions. At present, patients with CIED-Is are dying unnecessarily due to non-adherence with evidence-based, guideline recommended care. Healthcare providers and professional societies, working alongside government agencies, have an opportunity to significantly improve outcomes by developing a sustainable, accountable care model for CIED-Is.
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.