Real-world effectiveness of infection prevention interventions for reducing procedure-related cardiac device infections: Insights from the veterans affairs clinical assessment reporting and tracking program. (August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Asundi, Archana; Stanislawski, Maggie; Mehta, Payal; Baron, Anna E.; Mull, Hillary J.; Ho, P. Michael; Zimetbaum, Peter J.; Gupta, Kalpana; Branch-Elliman, Westyn
• Is Part Of: Infection control and hospital epidemiology. Volume 40:Number 8(2019)
• Page Start: 855
• Page End: 862
• Publication Date: 2019-08
• Subjects: Nosocomial infections -- Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Health facilities -- Sanitation -- Periodicals; Hospital buildings -- Sanitation -- Periodicals; Cross Infection -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Hospitals -- Periodicals; Infection Control -- Periodicals; 614.44
• DOI: 10.1017/ice.2019.127
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0899-823X

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To measure the association between receipt of specific infection prevention interventions and procedure-related cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections. Design: Retrospective cohort with manually reviewed infection status. Setting: Setting: National, multicenter Veterans Health Administration (VA) cohort. Participants: Sampling of procedures entered into the VA Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking-Electrophysiology (CART-EP) database from fiscal years 2008 through 2015. Methods: A sample of procedures entered into the CART-EP database underwent manual review for occurrence of CIED infection and other clinical/procedural variables. The primary outcome was 6-month incidence of CIED infection. Measures of association were calculated using multivariable generalized estimating equations logistic regression. Results: We identified 101 procedure-related CIED infections among 2, 098 procedures (4.8% of reviewed sample). Factors associated with increased odds of infections included (1) wound complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 8.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.16–24.20), (2) revisions including generator changes (aOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.59–3.63), (3) an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) >1.5 (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.12–2.18), and (4) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus colonization (aOR, 9.56; 95% CI, 1.55–27.77). Clinically effective prevention interventions included preprocedural skin cleaning with chlorhexidine versus other topical agents (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22–0.76) and receipt of β-lactam antimicrobial prophylaxis versus vancomycin (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37–0.96). The use of mesh pockets and continuation of antimicrobial prophylaxis after skin closure were not associated with reduced infection risk. Conclusions: These findings regarding the real-world clinical effectiveness of different prevention strategies can be applied to the development of evidence-based protocols and infection prevention guidelines specific to the electrophysiology laboratory.