The Blister Score: A Novel, Externally Validated Tool for Predicting Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections, and Its Cost-utility Implications for Antimicrobial Envelope Use.

Background: Antimicrobial envelopes reduce the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections, but their cost restricts routine use in the UK. Risk scoring could help identify which patients would most benefit from this technology. Methods: A novel risk score (BLISTER) was derived from multivariate analysis of factors associated with CIED infection. Diagnostic utility was assessed against the existing PADIT score in both standard and high-risk external validation cohorts, and cost-utility models examined different BLISTER and PADIT score thresholds for TYRXTM antimicrobial envelope (AE) allocation. Results: In a derivation cohort (n=7,383), CIED infection occurred in 59 individuals within 12 months of a procedure (event rate: 0.8%). In addition to the PADIT score constituents, lead extraction (HR 3.3 (1.9-6.1), p50mg/l (HR 3.0 (1.4-6.4), p=0.005), re-intervention within two years (HR 10.1 (5.6-17.9), p<0.0001), and top-quartile procedure duration (HR 2.6 (1.6-4.1), p=0.001) were independent predictors of infection. The BLISTER score demonstrated superior discriminative performance versus PADIT in the standard-risk (n=2,854, event rate: 0.8%, AUC 0.82 vs 0.71, p=0.001) and high-risk validation cohorts (n=1,961, event rate: 2.0%, AUC 0.77 vs 0.69, p=0.001), and in all patients (n=12,198, event rate: 1%, AUC 0.8 vs 0.75, p=0.002). In decision-analytic modelling, the optimum scenario assigned AEs to patients with BLISTER scores ≥ 6 (10.8%), delivering a significant reduction in infections (relative risk reduction: 30%, p=0.036) within the NICE cost-utility thresholds (ICER: ￡18,446). Conclusions: The BLISTER score (https://qxmd.com/calculate/calculator_876/the-blister-score-for-cied-infection) was a valid predictor of CIED infection, and could facilitate cost-effective AE allocation to high-risk patients

Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement

Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions

Pericardial Fluid Analysis in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Patients Who Underwent Pericardiocentesis

In this study, we aimed to examine the diagnostic yield of pericardial fluid biochemistry and cytology and their prognostic significance in patients with percutaneously drained pericardial effusions, with and without malignancy. This is a single-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent pericardiocentesis between 2010 and 2020. Data were extracted from electronic patient records, including procedural information, underlying diagnosis, and laboratory results. Patients were grouped into those with and without underlying malignancy. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the association of variables with mortality. The study included 179 patients; 50% had an underlying malignancy. There were no significant differences in pericardial fluid protein and lactate dehydrogenase between the 2 groups. Diagnostic yield from pericardial fluid analysis was greater in the malignant group (32% vs 11%, p = 0.002); 72% of newly diagnosed malignancies had positive fluid cytology. The 1-year survival was 86% and 33% in nonmalignant and malignant groups, respectively (p <0.001). Of 17 patients who died within the nonmalignant group, idiopathic effusions were the largest group (n = 6). In malignancy, lower pericardial fluid protein and higher serum C-reactive protein were associated with increased risk of mortality. In conclusion, pericardial fluid biochemistry has limited value in determining the etiology of pericardial effusions; fluid cytology is the most important diagnostic test. Mortality in malignant pericardial effusions may be associated with lower pericardial fluid protein levels and a higher serum C-reactive protein. Nonmalignant pericardial effusions do not have a benign prognosis and close follow-up is required

Long-term outcomes of index cryoballoon ablation or point-by-point radiofrequency ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and systolic heart failure

Catheter ablation is an established effective approach for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure, however, the role of cryoablation in this setting is unclear. Procedural success and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVEF) improvement in patients with LVEF ≤ 45% undergoing index catheter ablation with cryoablation were evaluated. Freedom from AF recurrence was seen in 43% rising to 59% following repeat procedure. There were significant improvements in LVEF and functional status at long‐term follow‐up. Results were comparable to a contemporaneous cohort of heart failure patients undergoing index ablation with radiofrequency ablation. Cryoablation is an effective first‐line AF ablation approach in the setting of heart failure