Risk Factors for CIED Infection After Secondary Procedures

OBJECTIVES This study aimed to identify risk factors for infection after secondary cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures. BACKGROUND Risk factors for CIED infection are not well defined and techniques to minimize infection lack supportive evidence. WRAP-IT (World-wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention trial), a large study that assessed the safety and efficacy of an antibacterial envelope for CIED infection reduction, offers insight into procedural details and infection prevention strategies. METHODS This analysis included 2,803 control patients from the WRAP-IT trial who received standard preoperative antibiotics but not the envelope (44 patients with major infections through all follow-up). A multivariate least absolute shrinkage and selection operator machine learning model, controlling for patient characteristics and procedural variables, was used for risk factor selection and identification. Risk factors consistently retaining predictive value in the model (appeared >10 times) across 100 iterations of imputed data were deemed significant. RESULTS Of the 81 variables screened, 17 were identified as risk factors with 6 being patient/device-related (nonmodifiable) and 11 begin procedure-related (potentially modifiable). Patient/device-related factors included higher number of previous CIED procedures, history of atrial arrhythmia, geography (outside North America and Europe), device type, and lower body mass index. Procedural factors associated with increased risk included longer procedure time, implant location (non-left pectoral subcutaneous), perioperative glycopeptide antibiotic versus nonglycopeptide, anticoagulant, and/or antiplatelet use, and capsulectomy. Factors associated with decreased risk of infection included chlorhexidine skin preparation and antibiotic pocket wash. CONCLUSIONS In WRAP-IT patients, we observed that several procedural risk factors correlated with infection risk. These results can help guide infection prevention strategies to minimize infections associated with secondary CIED procedures. (J Am Coll Cardiol EP 2022;8:101-111) (c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy is cost effective for primary prevention patients in Taiwan: An analysis from the Improve SCA trial.

ObjectiveImplantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention (PP) of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) are well-established but underutilized globally. The Improve SCA study has identified a cohort of patients called 1.5 primary prevention (1.5PP) based on PP patients with the presence of certain risk factors. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy compared to no ICD among the PP population and the subset of 1.5PP patients in Taiwan.MethodsA Markov model was run over a lifetime time horizon from the Taiwan payer perspective. Mortality and utility estimates were obtained from the literature (PP) and the IMPROVE SCA trial (1.5PP). Cost inputs were obtained from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA), Ministry of Health and Welfare. We used a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of NT$2,100,000, as established through standard WTP research methods and in alignment with World Health Organization recommendations.ResultsThe total discounted costs for ICD therapy and no ICD therapy were NT$1,664,259 and NT$646,396 respectively for PP, while they were NT$2,410,603 and NT$905,881 respectively for 1.5PP. Total discounted QALYs for ICD therapy and no ICD therapy were 6.48 and 4.98 respectively for PP, while they were 10.78 and 7.71 respectively for 1.5PP. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was NT$708,711 for PP and NT$441,153 for 1.5PP, therefore ICD therapy should be considered cost effective for PP and highly cost effective for 1.5PP.ConclusionsICD therapy compared to no ICD therapy is cost-effective in the whole PP population and highly cost-effective in the subset 1.5PP population in Taiwan