English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are highly morbid, thus peri-procedural prevention interventions are employed to reduce them. However, little data exists evaluating the comparative effectiveness of these prevention interventions. Thus, the objective of this study was to measure the association between infection prevention and antimicrobial prophylaxis strategies and procedure-related CIED infections among a national, multi-center cohort using a nested case–control design. Methods A selection of procedures entered into the VA Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking-Electrophysiology cohort from FY 2008–2016 underwent manual review for presence of infection and for type of prevention strategy used. The primary outcome was 6-month incidence of CIED infection. Measures of association were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. Results One hundred and fourteen CIED infections among 2,131 procedures were identified; 18 were superficial and 98 were deep. In a multivariable analysis, procedural factors associated with increased odds of procedure-related CIED infections included procedure complications (e.g., hematoma) and revisions (Table 1). Prevention factors associated with reduced risk included chlorhexidine (CHG) skin cleaning, pre-procedure prophylaxis with a β-lactam, and intra-procedure antibiotic washes. Infection prevention strategies that were not associated with risk reduction included: antibiotic mesh pockets, combination prophylaxis regimens (e.g., β-lactam plus vancomycin), and prolonged antimicrobial prophylaxis lasting >24 hours post-procedure. Conclusion Although the major driver of procedure-related CIED infections are procedural factors and complications, some infection prevention strategies are beneficial. These results should be used to inform infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship practices in the electrophysiology laboratory.Table 1: Factors Associated with Risk of CIED Infection Intervention Odds Ratio (95% CI) P-Value Procedure complication 4.3 (2.6–7.2) <0.001 Revision 2.0 (1.3–3.1) 0.002 Pre-procedure CHG 0.40 (1.3–3.1) 0.002 Pre-procedure β-lactam 0.59 (0.38–0.72) 0.024 Antibiotic washes 0.51 (0.27–0.99) 0.045 Disclosures W. Branch-Elliman, Veterans’ Integrated Service Network Career Development Award: Investigator, Research grant. American Heart Association: Investigator, Research grant.

open forum infectious diseases

2126. Comparative Effectiveness of Infection Prevention Interventions for Reducing Procedure-Related Cardiac Device Infections: Insights from the VA CART Program