Management guidelines for cardiac implantable electronic device infections exist, but practice patterns of infectious disease (ID) specialists are not well known. We found that while many ID specialist practices mirror existing guidelines, a combination of complete device removal and prolonged antimicrobial therapy is favored when Staphylococcus aureus is involved.Keywords. device-related infection; cardiac implantable electronic device; infectious disease specialists.Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) including percutaneous pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices have revolutionized the management of arrhythmias and congestive heart failure. However, infections can complicate the use of these devices, with rates ranging from <1% to 4% [1][2][3][4]. Guidelines for treatment of CIED infections exist [5], but little is known about current practice patterns for these challenging infections.
METHODSThe Infectious Diseases Society of America's Emerging Infections Network (EIN) is a provider-based network of practicing infectious disease (ID) specialists in the United States and Canada, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [6]. With input from a subset of experienced EIN members, we developed a 7-question multiple-choice query to assess ID specialist practice patterns related to the management of CIED infections based on commonly encountered clinical scenarios (Supplementary Material). This query was distributed by e-mail or facsimile with 2 weekly reminders. Our query process and EIN members are described elsewhere [6].Nonresponse bias was assessed by comparing geographic and practice characteristics of nonrespondents and respondents. Respondents who had treated 1 or more CIED infections in the past year were included in further analyses, and respondents were not required to answer all questions. Categorical variables were compared using a χ 2 test or Fisher exact test with SAS, version 9.3 (Cary, North Carolina). P values <.05 were considered significant.
RESULTSThe electronic query was available to EIN members from 29
Complete vs Partial Device RemovalWhen treating occult bacteremia in a patient with a CIED, 146/358 (46%) respondents preferred (ie, usually or almost always recommended) complete device removal. In contrast, only 25/345 (7%) preferred partial device removal. When bacteremia was attributable to a noncardiovascular infection (eg, pneumonia), fewer respondents (40/355; 11%) preferred complete device removal, and only 9/345 (3%) preferred partial device removal. For a patient with CIED-related pocket infection that required incision and drainage, most (293/359; 82%) preferred complete device removal; 102/347 (29%) also preferred partial device removal as an alternative. For lead-associated endocarditis, nearly all respondents (356/ 360; 99%) preferred complete device removal, whereas only 70/345 (20%) also preferred partial device removal as an alternative.Nearly three quarters (73%) of respondents endorsed comple...