4.8 Article

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in patients with permanent pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 104, 期 9, 页码 1029-1033

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/hc3401.095097

关键词

infection; pacemakers; echocardiography

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI-01647] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Although cardiac device infections (CDIs) are a devastating complication of permanent pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, the incidence of CDI in patients with bacteremia is not well defined. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of CDI among patients with permanent pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators who develop Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB). Methods and Results-A cohort of all adult patients with SAB and permanent pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators over a 6-year period was evaluated prospectively. The overall incidence of confirmed CDI was 15 of 33 (45.4%). Confirmed CDI occurred in 9 of the 12 patients (75%) with early SAB (<1 year after device placement). Fifteen of 21 patients (71.5%) with late SAB (1 year after device placement) had either confirmed (6 of 21, 28.5%) or possible (9 of 21, 43%) CDI. In 60% of the patients (9 of 15) with confirmed CDI, no local signs or symptoms suggesting generator pocket infection were noted. Conclusions-The incidence of CDI among patients with SAB and cardiac devices is high. Neither physical examination nor echocardiography can exclude the possibility of CDI. In patients with early SAB, the device is usually involved, and approximate to 40% of these patients have obvious clinical signs of cardiac device involvement. Conversely, in patients with late SA-B, the cardiac device is rarely the initial source of bacteremia, and there is a paucity of local signs of device involvement. The cardiac device is involved, however, in greater than or equal to 28% of these patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据