Aims Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a severe complication to modern management of cardiac arrhythmias. The CIED type and the type of surgery are recognized as risk factors for CIED infections, but knowledge of patient-related risk factors is scarce. This study aimed to identify lifelong patient-related risk factors for CIED infections. Methods and results Consecutive Danish patients undergoing a CIED implantation or reoperation between January 1996 and April 2018 were included. The cohort consisted of 84 429 patients undergoing 108 494 CIED surgeries with a combined follow-up of 458 257 CIED-years. A total of 1556 CIED explantations were classified as either pocket (n = 1022) or systemic CIED infection (n = 534). Data were cross-linked with records from the Danish National Patient Registry and the Danish National Prescription Registry. Using multiple-record and multiple-event per subject proportional hazard analysis, specific patient-related risk factors were identified but with several variations amongst the subtypes of CIED infection. CIED reoperations were associated with the highest risk of pocket CIED infection but also CIED type, young age, and prior valvular surgery [hazard ratio (HR): 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29–2.04]. Severe renal insufficiency/dialysis (HR: 2.40, 95% CI: 1.65–3.49), dermatitis (HR: 2.80, 95% CI: 1.92–4.05), and prior valvular surgery (HR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.59–2.75) were associated with the highest risk of systemic CIED infections. Congestive heart failure, ischaemic heart disease, malignancy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and temporary pacing were not significant at multivariate analysis. Conclusion Specific comorbidities and surgical procedures were associated with a higher risk of CIED infections but with variations amongst pocket and systemic CIED infection. Pocket CIED infections were associated with CIED reoperations, young age and more complex type of CIED, whereas systemic CIED infections were associated with risk factors predisposing to bacteraemia.

Nearly one in ten patients experience complications in relation to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations. CIED complications have serious implications for the patients and for the healthcare system. In light of the rising rates of new implants and consistent rate of complications, primary prevention remains a major concern. To guide future efforts, we sought to review the evidence base underlying common preventive actions made during a primary CIED implantation.

Aims  Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reoperations are associated with a particularly high risk of device-related infection (DRI). An antibacterial envelope reduces the occurrence of DRIs in a broad population of moderate-tohigh-risk patients. To investigate the efficacy of an antibacterial envelope in a very high-risk population of patients undergoing CRT reoperation. Methods and results In this Danish two-centre, observational cohort study, we included consecutive patients who underwent a CRT pacemaker- or defibrillator reoperation procedure between January 2008 and November 2019. We obtained data from the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register and through systematic medical chart review. Follow-up was restricted to 2 years. A total of 1943 patients were included in the study of which 736 (38%) received an envelope. Envelope patients had more independent risk factors for infection than non-envelope patients. Sixty-seven (3.4%) patients met the primary endpoint of DRI requiring device system extraction; 50 in the non-envelope group and 17 in the envelope group [4.1% vs. 2.3%, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30–0.90; P = 0.021]. This difference persisted in propensity score analysis (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29–0.90; P = 0.019). Conclusion  Use of an antibacterial envelope was associated with a clinically and statistically significant reduction in DRIs in patients undergoing CRT reoperations. Our results were comparable to those recently reported from a large randomized controlled trial, which is suggestive of a proportional effect of the envelope even in very high-risk patients.

No abstract