4.7 Article

16-Year Trends in the Infection Burden for Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in the United States 1993 to 2008

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 58, Issue 10, Pages 1001-1006

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.04.033

Keywords

endocarditis; ICDs; infection; pacemakers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives We analyzed the infection burden associated with the implantation of cardiac implantable electrophysiological devices (CIEDs) in the United States for the years 1993 to 2008. Background Recent data suggest that the rate of infection following CIED implantation may be increasing. Methods The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) discharge records were queried between 1993 and 2008 using the 9th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM). CIED infection was defined as either: 1) ICD-9 code for device-related infection (996.61) and any CIED procedure or removal code; or 2) CIED procedure code along with systemic infection. Patient health profile was evaluated by coding for renal failure, heart failure, respiratory failure, and diabetes mellitus. The infection burden and patient health profile were calculated for each year, and linear regression was used to test for changes over time. Results During the study period (1993 to 2008), the incidence of CIED infection was 1.61%. The annual rate of infections remained constant until 2004, when a marked increase was observed, which coincided with an increase in the incidence of major comorbidities. This was associated with a marked increase in mortality and in-hospital financial charges. Conclusions The infection burden associated with CIED implantation is increasing over time and is associated with prolonged hospital stays and high financial costs. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58: 1001-6) (C) 2011 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available