Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: multicentre validation of a novel risk score and its cost–utility implications for antimicrobial envelope use
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: multicentre validation of a novel risk score and its cost–utility implications for antimicrobial envelope use
Do you wish to request the book?
Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: multicentre validation of a novel risk score and its cost–utility implications for antimicrobial envelope use
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: multicentre validation of a novel risk score and its cost–utility implications for antimicrobial envelope use
2022
Overview
Introduction: Antimicrobial envelopes reduce the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections; however, patient selection strategies are poorly defined and cost–utility data are limited. Methods: In a preliminary internal analysis, we examined the factors associated with infection for all transvenous CIED implants, generator changes and non-infected lead interventions at a single tertiary centre from 2016 to 2019. The primary outcome was hospitalisation for device infection within 12 months. We subsequently developed a novel risk score (BLISTER) and, in a multicentre validation cohort, compared prognostic utility versus the PADIT score. Finally, both scores were tested as gatekeepers in cost–utility modelling of the TYRX antimicrobial envelope; quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) increments were extrapolated from analysis of EQ-5D-3L data for all UK patients enrolled in the WRAP-IT trial. Results: A total of 6,035 patients underwent 7,383 procedures; CIED infection occurred in 59 individuals (0.8%). In addition to the PADIT score constituents, lead extraction (HR 3.3 [1.9–6.1]; p<0.0001), C-reactive protein >50 mg/L (HR 3.0 [1.4–6.4]; p=0.005), re-intervention within 2 years (HR 10.1 [5.6–17.9]; p<0.0001), and procedure duration over 2 hours (HR 2.6 [1.6–4.1]; p=0.001) were independent predictors of infection, and were incorporated into the novel BLISTER score. In a validation cohort comprising 2,701 additional patients from three tertiary centres, BLISTER demonstrated superior prognostic utility versus PADIT (AUC 0.83 vs 0.73; p=0.01). The optimum cost–utility model assigned TYRX envelopes to all patients with a BLISTER score ≥6, and predicted a reduction in infections (0.55% versus 0.8%; p=0.033; number needed to treat 63) with a cost per QALY gained of £24,581. Conclusions: The BLISTER score was a powerful predictor of infection in a heterogeneous CIED population and may facilitate cost-effective TYRX envelope allocation. [Image Omitted]
Publisher
Touch Medical Media Limited
Subject
