Incidence and risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic device infection in current clinical settings in a Japanese population: A 20-year single-center observational study. Issue 1 (July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ishiguchi, Hironori; Ishikura, Masahiro; Yoshida, Masaaki; Imoto, Koji; Sonoyama, Kazuhiko; Kawabata, Tetsuya; Ishihara, Yusuke; Yoshiga, Yasuhiro; Shimizu, Akihiko; Oda, Tsuyoshi
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiology. Volume 76:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 115
• Page End: 122
• Publication Date: 2020-07
• Subjects: Cardiac implantable electronic device -- Infection -- Pacemaker; Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2020.01.006
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0914-5087

Abstract

Highlights: Revision and younger age were risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. Incidence of CIED infection was due to an increase in late CIED infection. The rate of late CIED infection was significantly increased in current clinical settings. Abstract: Background: The incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is increasing worldwide. However, data regarding this phenomenon in Japan and information on factors associated with developing CIED infection are limited. Our aim was to compare the incidence of CIED infection between pre-current (past 10–20 years) and current (past 10 years) clinical settings and to investigate risk factors for CIED infection in current clinical settings in a Japanese population. Methods: This observational study included 1749 patients (age 77 ± 12 years, 824 males) who underwent a CIED-related procedure between August 1999 and July 2019 at our institution. We defined the pre-current and current clinical setting periods as August 1999–July 2009 (period I) and August 2009–July 2019 (period II), respectively. We compared the incidence rate of CIED infection between periods and evaluated the risk factors for CIED infection in period II by multivariate analysis. Results: A CIED infection was identified in 0.7% (5/709 patients) and 1.7% (17/1040) of patients in periods I and II, respectively. Notably, the rate of late (>6 months since last procedure) CIED infection was significantly increased in period II (1.3% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.01), despite the rate of early infection (≤6 months) being comparable (0.4% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.58). On multiple logistic regression, revision [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 5.2 (1.6–16.3), p = 0.005] and age [0.96, (0.93–0.99), p = 0.007] were identified as independent risk factors for CIED infection in period II. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the increasing incidence of CIED infection in current clinical settings was due to an increase in late CIED infection. Furthermore, revision and younger age were identified as independent risk factors for CIED infection in current clinical settings. Our data indicate that clinicians should consider whether the merit of a procedure can overcome the risk of infection when planning revision or implantation in younger patients.