Forty-Year Trends in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infective Endocarditis

Background: Studies investigating cardiac implantable electronic device infective endocarditis (CIED-IE) epidemiological changes and prognosis over long periods of time are lacking. Methods: Retrospective single cardiovascular surgery center cohort study of definite CIED-IE episodes between 1981-202...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Hernández Meneses, Marta, Llopis Pérez, Jaime, Sandoval, Elena, Ninot, Salvador, Almela, M. (Manel), Falces Salvador, Carles, Pericàs, Juan M., Vidal, Bàrbara, Perissinotti, Andrés, Marco Reverté, Francesc, Mestres, Carlos A., Pare i Bardera, J. Carles, García de la Mària, Cristina, Cuervo Requena, Guillermo, Quintana, Eduard, Tolosana, José M. (José María), Moreno Camacho, Ma. Asunción, Miró Meda, José M. (José María), 1956-, Hospital Clinic Infective Endocarditis Team Investigators
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2022
País:España
Institución:Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya)
Repositorio:Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya
OAI Identifier:oai:recercat.cat:2445/195064
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/2445/195064
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Pronòstic mèdic
Epidemiologia
Endocarditis
Prognosis
Epidemiology
Descripción
Sumario:Background: Studies investigating cardiac implantable electronic device infective endocarditis (CIED-IE) epidemiological changes and prognosis over long periods of time are lacking. Methods: Retrospective single cardiovascular surgery center cohort study of definite CIED-IE episodes between 1981-2020. A comparative analysis of two periods (1981-2000 vs 2001-2020) was conducted to analyze changes in epidemiology and outcome over time. Results: One-hundred and thirty-eight CIED-IE episodes were diagnosed: 25 (18%) first period and 113 (82%) second. CIED-IE was 4.5 times more frequent in the second period, especially in implantable cardiac defibrillators. Age (63 [53-70] vs 71 [63-76] years, P < .01), comorbidities (CCI 3.0 [2-4] vs 4.5 [3-6], P > .01), nosocomial infections (4% vs 15.9%, P = .02) and transfers from other centers (8% vs 41.6%, P < .01) were significantly more frequent in the second period, as were methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococcal (MR-CoNS) (0% vs 13.3%, P < .01) and Enterococcus spp. (0% vs 5.3%, P = .01) infections, pulmonary embolism (0% vs 10.6%, P < .01) and heart failure (12% vs 28.3%, p < .01). Second period surgery rates were lower (96% vs 87.6%, P = .09), and there were no differences in in-hospital (20% vs 11.5%, P = .11) and one-year mortalities (24% vs 15%, P = .33), or relapses (8% vs 5.3%, P = 0.65). Multivariate analysis showed Charlson index (hazard ratios [95% confidence intervals]; 1.5 [1.16-1.94]) and septic shock (23.09 [4.57-116.67]) were associated with a worse prognosis, whereas device removal (0.11 [.02-.57]), transfers (0.13 [.02-0.95]), and second-period diagnosis (0.13 [.02-.71]) were associated with better one-year outcomes. Conclusions: CIED-IE episodes increased more than four-fold during last 40 years. Despite CIED-IE involved an older population with more comorbidities, antibiotic-resistant MR-CoNS, and complex devices, one-year survival improved.

Similares en LA Referencia