Simple jQuery Dropdowns
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/dspace/handle/123456789/51577
Title: Device infections in implantable cardioverter defibrillators versus permanent pacemakers: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Pattara Rattanawong
Jakrin Kewcharoen
Poemlarp Mekraksakit
Raktham Mekritthikrai
Narut Prasitlumkum
Wasawat Vutthikraivit
Prapaipan Putthapiban
Jonathan Dworkin
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at Lubbock
Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Phramongkutklao College of Medicine
Einstein Medical Center
Keywords: Medicine
Issue Date: 1-Jul-2019
Citation: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. Vol.30, No.7 (2019), 1053-1065
Abstract: © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Introduction: Recent studies suggest that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are associated with increased risk of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections when compared with permanent pacemakers (PPMs). However, there were controversies among studies. In this study we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the risk of device infection in ICD versus PPM. Methods: We searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to January 2019. Data from each study were combined using the random-effects, generic inverse variance method of Der Simonian and Laird to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Twenty-seven studies involving 202 323 CIEDs (36 782 ICDs and 165 541 PPMs) were included. Infections occurred from 9 days to 6 years postoperatively. When compared with PPM, ICD had a significantly higher risk of device infection in overall analysis (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.29-2.04). The risk was seen in subgroups such as single chamber or dual chamber device (OR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.18-2.09), de novo implantation (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.29-2.69), revision implantation (OR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.24-2.13), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) (OR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.18-2.60). CRT-defibrillator increased risk of infection over CRT-pacemaker in revision implantation (OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.20-2.74) but not in de novo implantation (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.23-4.88). The increased risk of infection among defibrillator was higher in CRT compared to non-CRT but not significant (P = 0.654). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrates a statistically significant increased risk of device infection in CIED patients who received ICD when compared to PPM.
URI: http://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/dspace/handle/123456789/51577
metadata.dc.identifier.url: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85064563326&origin=inward
ISSN: 15408167
10453873
Appears in Collections:Scopus 2019

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.