Prevention of Device Infection: Procedural Aspects, Drugs, and Preventive Tools

  • Igor DiembergerEmail author
  • Giuseppe Boriani
  • Jean-Claude Deharo


Although the recently reported results of the PADIT study [1] indisputably bring a positive message by showing that the infection rate within the first year after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation in advanced care systems was “only” 1% in high-risk patients, infection associated with the use of CIED (CIEDI) remains a serious complication leading to significant morbidity and mortality. These infections can be the result of initial pocket infection, usually due to surgical site contamination (more frequently) or secondary to hematogenous seeding of the leads or pocket during an episode of bacteremia due to remote septic foci or associated with either intravascular catheters or invasive procedures. As previously discussed in Chaps.  3 and  4, the principal agents involved in the development of CIEDI are gram-positive Staphylococci, and the main factors promoting the infective process can be classified into (a) patient-related, (b) device-related, (c) procedure-related, and (d) related to operators’ experience. In this chapter, we will focus on the various aspects of periprocedural modifiable risk factors: anticoagulation, antisepsis, antibiotic prophylaxis, and wound care. We will discuss both available evidence supporting standard approaches and recently introduced devices to improve CIED procedures. On the contrary, prevention of CIEDI through adoption of new CIED technologies, patient-tailored choice of the device, implanting procedure, and long-term follow-up are discussed in Chaps.  10 and  12.


CIED Infection Prevention Prophylaxis Pacemaker Defibrillator Surgical site infection Endocarditis Patient preparation 


  1. 1.
    Abrahamyan L, et al. Insights into the contemporary management of heart failure in specialized multidisciplinary ambulatory clinics. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29(9):1062–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greenspon AJ, et al. 16-year trends in the infection burden for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the United States 1993 to 2008. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(10):1001–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diemberger I, et al. The “subtle” connection between development of cardiac implantable electrical device infection and survival after complete system removal: an observational prospective multicenter study. Int J Cardiol. 2018;250:146–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shariff N, et al. Health and economic outcomes associated with use of an antimicrobial envelope as a standard of care for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2015;26(7):783–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Polyzos KA, Konstantelias AA, Falagas ME. Risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic device infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace. 2015;17(5):767–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Maria E, et al. Prevention of infections in cardiovascular implantable electronic devices beyond the antibiotic agent. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2014;15(7):554–64.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Furnary AP, et al. Continuous intravenous insulin infusion reduces the incidence of deep sternal wound infection in diabetic patients after cardiac surgical procedures. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67(2):352–60; discussion 360–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Woodhead K, et al. Behaviours and rituals in the operating theatre. A report from the Hospital Infection Society Working Party on Infection Control in Operating Theatres. J Hosp Infect. 2002;51(4):241–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leaper D, et al. Prevention and treatment of surgical site infection: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1924.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diemberger I, et al. Predictors of long-term survival free from relapses after extraction of infected CIED. Europace. 2018;20(6):1018–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kowalczyk J, et al. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy-incidence and prognostic importance. Sub-analysis of data from randomized TRUST CRT trial. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2014;40(1):1–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boriani G, Diemberger I. A closer look into the complexity of our practice: outcome research for transvenous temporary cardiac pacing. Int J Cardiol. 2018;271:117–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Padfield GJ, et al. Preventing cardiac implantable electronic device infections. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12(11):2344–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Habib G, et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: The Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur Heart J, 2015. 2015;36(44):3075–128.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nishimura RA, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(2):252–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Al-Khatib SM, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for Management of Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(14):e91–e220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baddour LM, et al. Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;121(3):458–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tobin K, et al. Acute complications of permanent pacemaker implantation: their financial implication and relation to volume and operator experience. Am J Cardiol. 2000;85(6):–6): p. 774, A9Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bernard ML, et al. Meta-analysis of bleeding complications associated with cardiac rhythm device implantation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2012;5(3):468–74.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Essebag V, et al. Clinically significant pocket hematoma increases long-term risk of device infection: BRUISE CONTROL INFECTION study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(11):1300–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    De Sensi F, et al. Pocket hematoma: a call for definition. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2015;38(8):909–13.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klug D, et al. Risk factors related to infections of implanted pacemakers and cardioverter-defibrillators: results of a large prospective study. Circulation. 2007;116(12):1349–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ezzat VA, et al. A systematic review of ICD complications in randomised controlled trials versus registries: is our ‘real-world’ data an underestimation? Open Heart. 2015;2(1):e000198.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nichols CI, Vose JG. Incidence of bleeding-related complications during primary implantation and replacement of cardiac implantable electronic devices. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017:6(1).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Birnie DH, et al. Pacemaker or defibrillator surgery without interruption of anticoagulation. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(22):2084–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Airaksinen KE, et al. Safety of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation during uninterrupted warfarin treatment—the FinPAC study. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(4):3679–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Poole JE, et al. Complication rates associated with pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator replacements and upgrade procedures: results from the REPLACE registry. Circulation. 2010;122(16):1553–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yeoh A, et al. Wound haematoma following de fibrillator implantation: incidence and predictors in the Shockless Implant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial: comment. Europace. 2018;20(8):1388.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Michaud GF, et al. A randomized trial comparing heparin initiation 6 h or 24 h after pacemaker or defibrillator implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35(7):1915–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Birnie DH, et al. Continued vs. interrupted direct oral anticoagulants at the time of device surgery, in patients with moderate to high risk of arterial thrombo-embolic events (BRUISE CONTROL-2). Eur Heart J. 2018;39(44):3973–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tolosana JM, et al. Preparation for pacemaker or implantable cardiac defibrillator implants in patients with high risk of thrombo-embolic events: oral anticoagulation or bridging with intravenous heparin? A prospective randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2009;30(15):1880–4.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Douketis JD, et al. Perioperative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(9):823–33.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Proietti R, et al. Risk of pocket hematoma in patients on chronic anticoagulation with warfarin undergoing electrophysiological device implantation: a comparison of different peri-operative management strategies. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19(8):1461–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rowley CP, et al. Safety of continuous anticoagulation with dabigatran during implantation of cardiac rhythm devices. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(8):1165–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jennings JM, et al. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device implantation with uninterrupted dabigatran: comparison to uninterrupted warfarin. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24(10):1125–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Essebag V, et al. Short-term dabigatran interruption before cardiac rhythm device implantation: multi-centre experience from the RE-LY trial. Europace. 2017;19(10):1630–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kutinsky IB, et al. Risk of hematoma complications after device implant in the clopidogrel era. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010;3(4):312–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Koh Y, et al. Cardiac implantable electronic device hematomas: risk factors and effect of prophylactic pressure bandaging. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;40(7):857–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sticherling C, et al. Antithrombotic management in patients undergoing electrophysiological procedures: a European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) position document endorsed by the ESC Working Group Thrombosis, Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS). Europace. 2015;17(8):1197–214.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Malagu M, et al. Frequency of “pocket” hematoma in patients receiving vitamin K antagonist and antiplatelet therapy at the time of pacemaker or cardioverter defibrillator implantation (from the POCKET study). Am J Cardiol. 2017;119(7):1036–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Beton O, et al. Bleeding complications during cardiac electronic device implantation in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy: is there any value of local tranexamic acid? BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2016;16:73.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ilov N, et al. Arguments to apply epinephrine for pocket hematoma reduction. The MAITRE Study. J Atr Fibrillation. 2016;9(1):1391.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ohlow MA, et al. Pocket related complications in 163 patients receiving anticoagulation or dual antiplatelet therapy: D-Stat Hemostat versus standard of care. Int J Cardiol. 2012;159(3):177–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tscholl V, et al. Prospective randomized study evaluating the effects of PerClot(R) (polysaccharide hemostatic system) application in patients with high bleeding risk undergoing cardiac rhythm device implantation. Int J Cardiol. 2017;248:84–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chia PL, Foo D. Use of oxidized regenerated cellulose to prevent pocket hematomas after cardiac electronic device implantation in patients on anticoagulants or dual antiplatelet therapy. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(4):4406–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sandoe JA, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention and management of implantable cardiac electronic device infection. Report of a joint Working Party project on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC, host organization), British Heart Rhythm Society (BHRS), British Cardiovascular Society (BCS), British Heart Valve Society (BHVS) and British Society for Echocardiography (BSE). J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70(2):325–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Berrios-Torres SI, et al. Centers for disease control and prevention guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection. JAMA. 2017;152(8):784–91.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Da Costa A, et al. Preoperative skin antiseptics for prevention of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: a historical-controlled interventional trial comparing aqueous against alcoholic povidone-iodine solutions. Europace. 2015;17(7):1092–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    MHRA, Dangerous liaisons: diathermy burns with alcohol based skin preparations.
  50. 50.
    McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999;12(1):147–79.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bongiorni MG, et al. How European centres diagnose, treat, and prevent CIED infections: results of an European Heart Rhythm Association survey. Europace. 2012;14(11):1666–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Uslan DZ, et al. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device replacement infections and prevention: results from the REPLACE Registry. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2012;35(1):81–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Darouiche RO, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus Povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Qintar M, et al. The impact of changing antiseptic skin preparation agent used for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures on the risk of infection. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2015;38(2):240–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Loveday HP, et al. epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect. 2014;86(Suppl 1):S1–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Chen HC, et al. Bundled preparation of skin antisepsis decreases the risk of cardiac implantable electronic device-related infection. Europace. 2016;18(6):858–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wistrand C, et al. The effect of preheated versus room-temperature skin disinfection on bacterial colonization during pacemaker device implantation: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015;4:44.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Makki D, et al. Lifting incise drapes off the skin during wound closure can cause contamination. J Perioper Pract. 2015;25(5):112–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Grove GL, Eyberg CI. Comparison of two preoperative skin antiseptic preparations and resultant surgical incise drape adhesion to skin in healthy volunteers. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(13):1187–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kozon I, et al. Risk factors of cardiac device infection: glove contamination during device procedures. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(8):866–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nichols CI, Vose JG, Mittal S. Incidence and costs related to lead damage occurring within the first year after a cardiac implantable electronic device replacement procedure. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016:5(2).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kirkfeldt RE, et al. Complications after cardiac implantable electronic device implantations: an analysis of a complete, nationwide cohort in Denmark. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(18):1186–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Krahn AD, et al. Predictors of short-term complications after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator replacement: results from the Ontario ICD Database. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2011;4(2):136–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kypta A, et al. An electrical plasma surgery tool for device replacement—retrospective evaluation of complications and economic evaluation of costs and resource use. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2015;38(1):28–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Diemberger I, et al. Detect long-term complications after ICD replacement (DECODE): rationale and study design of a Multicenter Italian Registry. Clin Cardiol. 2015;38(10):577–84.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lim KK, et al. Effects of electrocautery on transvenous lead insulation materials. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2009;20(4):429–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kypta A, et al. Economic assessment of traditional surgical intervention versus use of a new innovative radiofrequency based surgical system in device replacements. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0192587.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wasserlauf J, et al. Avoiding damage to transvenous leads—a comparison of electrocautery techniques and two insulated electrocautery blades. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;41(12):1593–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kaya E, Totzeck M, Rassaf T. Pulsed electron avalanche knife (PEAK) PlasmaBlade in pacemaker and defibrillator procedures. Eur J Med Res. 2017;22(1):49.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Servello D, Bona AR, Zekaj E. Is capsulectomy a feasible and useful measure in internal pulse generator replacement procedures? A technical note on the use of the PEAK PlasmaBlade(TM). Acta Neurochir. 2016;158(6):1165–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Diemberger I, et al. From lead management to implanted patient management: indications to lead extraction in pacemaker and cardioverter-defibrillator systems. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011;8(2):235–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Gleva MJ, Poole JE. Prevention of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: update and evaluation of the potential role for capsulectomy or the antibiotic pouch. J Atr Fibrillation. 2017;9(5):1540.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kleemann T, et al. Prevalence of bacterial colonization of generator pockets in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients without signs of infection undergoing generator replacement or lead revision. Europace. 2010;12(1):58–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lakkireddy D, et al. IMpact of pocKet rEvision on the rate of InfecTion and other CompLications in patients rEquiring pocket mAnipulation for generator replacement and/or lead replacement or revisioN (MAKE IT CLEAN): a prospective randomized study. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12(5):950–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Steckiewicz R, et al. Morphometric parameters of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) pocket walls observed on device replacement. Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2017;Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Biefer HR, et al. Generator pocket adhesions of cardiac leads: classification and correlation with transvenous lead extraction results. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013;36(9):1111–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Spencker S, et al. Comparison of skin adhesive and absorbable intracutaneous suture for the implantation of cardiac rhythm devices. Europace. 2011;13(3):416–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Khodak A, Budzikowski AS. Use of barbed suture for wound closure in electrophysiology device procedures. J Atr Fibrillation. 2017;9(6):1571.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    De Maria E. New skin closure system facilitates wound healing after cardiovascular implantable electronic device surgery. World J Clin Cases. 2015;3(8):675–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Koerber SM, et al. Noninvasive tissue adhesive for cardiac implantable electronic device pocket closure: the TAPE pilot study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019;54(2):171–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    O’Hea BJ, Ho MN, Petrek JA. External compression dressing versus standard dressing after axillary lymphadenectomy. Am J Surg. 1999;177(6):450–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Turagam MK, et al. Use of a pocket compression device for the prevention and treatment of pocket hematoma after pacemaker and defibrillator implantation (STOP-HEMATOMA-I). J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2017;49(2):197–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Mounsey JP, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in permanent pacemaker implantation: a prospective randomised trial. Br Heart J. 1994;72(4):339–43.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    de Oliveira JC, et al. Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis before the implantation of pacemakers and cardioverter-defibrillators: results of a large, prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2009;2(1):29–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Da Costa A, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for permanent pacemaker implantation: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 1998;97(18):1796–801.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Darouiche R, Mosier M, Voigt J. Antibiotics and antiseptics to prevent infection in cardiac rhythm management device implantation surgery. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2012;35(11):1348–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Dwivedi SK, et al. Short-term (48 hours) versus long-term (7 days) antibiotic prophylaxis for permanent pacemaker implantation. Indian Heart J. 2001;53(6):740–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ramsdale DR, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for pacemaker implantation: a prospective randomized trial in 302 patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1993;16:1138.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Tarakji KG, et al. Antibacterial envelope to prevent cardiac implantable device infection. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(20):1895–905.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Townsend TR, et al. Clinical trial of cefamandole, cefazolin, and cefuroxime for antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1993;106(4):664–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Classen DC, et al. The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(5):281–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Zanetti G, Giardina R, Platt R. Intraoperative redosing of cefazolin and risk for surgical site infection in cardiac surgery. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(5):828–31.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Bolon MK, et al. Glycopeptides are no more effective than beta-lactam agents for prevention of surgical site infection after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(10):1357–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Finkelstein R, et al. Vancomycin versus cefazolin prophylaxis for cardiac surgery in the setting of a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;123(2):326–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Saginur R, Croteau D, Bergeron MG. Comparative efficacy of teicoplanin and cefazolin for cardiac operation prophylaxis in 3027 patients. The ESPRIT Group. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;120(6):1120–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Mese B, et al. Efficacy of linezolid, teicoplanin, and vancomycin in prevention of an experimental polytetrafluoroethylene graft infection model caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:909–14.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Byrne CJ, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin and attainment of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets in adult patients with haematological malignancy. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017;23(9):674e7–674e13.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Mini E, Nobili S, Periti P. Does surgical prophylaxis with teicoplanin constitute a therapeutic advance? J Chemother. 2000;12(Suppl 5):40–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    White RW, et al. Antimicrobial regime for cardiac surgery: the safety and effectiveness of short-course flucloxacillin (or teicoplanin) and gentamicin-based prophylaxis. J Card Surg. 2013;28(5):512–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Rein MF, Westervelt FB, Sande MA. Pharmacodynamics of cefazolin in the presence of normal and impaired renal function. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1973;4(3):366–71.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Rybak MJ. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of vancomycin. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42(Suppl 1):S35–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Bratzler DW, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2013;70(3):195–283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Krahn AD, et al. Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial: The PADIT Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(24):3098–109.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Lakkireddy D, et al. The impact of povidone-iodine pocket irrigation use on pacemaker and defibrillator infections. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28(8):789–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Raad I, et al. Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections. A randomized, double-blind trial. The Texas Medical Center Catheter Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(4):267–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Darouiche RO, et al. A comparison of two antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters. Catheter Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(1):1–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Zabramski JM, et al. Efficacy of antimicrobial-impregnated external ventricular drain catheters: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Neurosurg. 2003;98(4):725–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Illingworth BL, et al. In vivo efficacy of silver-coated (Silzone) infection-resistant polyester fabric against a biofilm-producing bacteria. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7(5):524–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Block SS, editor. Disinfection, sterilization and preservation, in silver and its compounds. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1997. p. 395–40.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Dandekar UP, et al. Silzone-coated St. Jude Medical valves: six-year experience in 46 patients. J Heart Valve Dis. 2007;16(1):37–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Hansen LK, et al. In vivo model of human pathogen infection and demonstration of efficacy by an antimicrobial pouch for pacing devices. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2009;32(7):898–907.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Hassoun A, et al. Retrospective comparative analysis of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections with and without the use of antibacterial envelopes. J Hosp Infect. 2017;95(3):286–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Koerber SM, et al. Use of antibiotic envelopes to prevent cardiac implantable electronic device infections: a meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018;29(4):609–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Kay G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of TYRX absorbable antibacterial envelope for prevention of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection. J Med Econ. 2018;21(3):294–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Kusumoto FM, et al. 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14(12):e503–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Ahsan SY, et al. A simple infection-control protocol to reduce serious cardiac device infections. Europace. 2014;16(10):1482–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Guan G, et al. Application of an infection control protocol (ICP) reduced cardiac device infection (CDI) in low-volume centers. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:1366–72.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Manolis AS, Melita H. Prevention of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: single operator technique with use of povidone-iodine, double gloving, meticulous aseptic/antiseptic measures and antibiotic prophylaxis. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;40(1):26–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Connolly SJ, et al. Randomized cluster crossover trials for reliable, efficient, comparative effectiveness testing: design of the Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT). Can J Cardiol. 2013;29(6):652–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Henrikson CA, et al. Antibacterial envelope is associated with low infection rates after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy device replacement: results of the CITADEL and CENTURION studies. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;3(10):1158–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Valgimigli M, et al. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: The Task Force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2018;39(3):213–60.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Bloom HL, et al. Implantation success and infection in cardiovascular implantable electronic device procedures utilizing an antibacterial envelope. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2011;34(2):133–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Kolek MJ, et al. Use of an antibacterial envelope is associated with reduced cardiac implantable electronic device infections in high-risk patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013;36(3):354–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Mittal S, et al. Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: incidence, risk factors, and the effect of the AigisRx antibacterial envelope. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11(4):595–601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Kolek MJ, et al. Efficacy of a bio-absorbable antibacterial envelope to prevent cardiac implantable electronic device infections in high-risk subjects. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2015;26(10):1111–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Tarakji KG, et al. Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic EnveloPe Infection PrevenTion Trial (WRAP-IT). Am Heart J. 2016;180:12–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Igor Diemberger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giuseppe Boriani
    • 2
  • Jean-Claude Deharo
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, Institute of CardiologyUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Cardiology Division, Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural SciencesUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Policlinico di ModenaModenaItaly
  3. 3.Service de CardiologieCHU La TimoneMarseilleFrance
  4. 4.Faculté de Médecine NordAMU, UMR MD2MarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations