UA-184069179-1 128: StAR: Complexities in CIED Infection - Febrile

Episode 128

128: StAR: Complexities in CIED Infection

This StAR episode features the CID State-of-the-Art Review on Complexities in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: A Contemporary Practical Approach.

Our guest stars this episode are from the Division of Public Health, Infectious Diseases and Occupational Medicine at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota:

Supavit Chesdachai

Hussam Tabaja

Daniel DeSimone

Journal article link: Chesdachai S, Baddour LM, Tabaja H, Madhavan M, Anavekar N, Zwischenberger BA, Erba PA, DeSimone DC. State-of-the-Art Review: Complexities in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: A Contemporary Practical Approach. Clin Infect Dis. 2025 Feb 5;80(1):e1-e15. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciae453. PMID: 39908172.


Journal companion article - Executive summary link: Chesdachai S, Baddour LM, Tabaja H, Madhavan M, Anavekar N, Zwischenberger BA, Erba PA, DeSimone DC. Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Complexities in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: A Contemporary Practical Approach. Clin Infect Dis. 2025 Feb 5;80(1):1-3. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciae454. PMID: 39908173.


From Clinical Infectious Diseases


Episodes | Consult Notes | Subscribe | Twitter | Merch | febrilepodcast@gmail.com

Febrile is produced with support from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)

Transcript
Speaker:

Hi everyone.

Speaker:

Welcome to Febrile, a cultured podcast about all things infectious disease.

Speaker:

We use consult questions to dive into ID clinical reasoning, diagnostics

Speaker:

and antimicrobial management.

Speaker:

I'm Sara Dong, your host and a Med Peds ID doc.

Speaker:

We are back today with a StAR episode, State of the Art Review.

Speaker:

These focus on recent state of the art reviews that were published in

Speaker:

Clinical Infectious Diseases, or CID.

Speaker:

So I'll start by introducing our guest stars today who are all joining us from

Speaker:

the Division of Public Health, Infectious Diseases, and Occupational Medicine at

Speaker:

Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Speaker:

Hi.

Speaker:

I am Hassam Tabaja.

Speaker:

I'm really happy to be back on the podcast with you.

Speaker:

I'm really thankful for you having me here again.

Speaker:

Dr. Hassam Tabaja is an Assistant Professor of Medicine.

Speaker:

His clinical research is focused on hardware associated infections, including

Speaker:

both cardiovascular device infection and orthopedic device infection.

Speaker:

Hi, this is Mac Chesdachai.

Speaker:

Really happy to be here and thank you so much for having me.

Speaker:

Dr. Supavit Chesdachai, or Mac, he is also an Assistant Professor of Medicine.

Speaker:

His clinical and research interest include cardiovascular infections and infections

Speaker:

in solid organ transplant recipients.

Speaker:

Hi, I'm Dan De Simone.

Speaker:

Thank you so much for having me back.

Speaker:

I love Febrile StAR.

Speaker:

Thank you so much.

Speaker:

We have Dr. Daniel DeSimone or Dan.

Speaker:

He is a Consultant and now Professor of Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

Speaker:

He also holds a joint appointment in the Department of Cardiovascular Diseases.

Speaker:

He has chaired and vice chaired several American Heart Association

Speaker:

scientific statements in cardiovascular infectious diseases.

Speaker:

His clinical and research interests focus on the prevention, diagnosis and

Speaker:

management of infective endocarditis, cardiac implantable electronic device

Speaker:

infections and vascular graft infections.

Speaker:

All right, let's jump in.

Speaker:

Well, Febrile is everyone's favorite cultured podcast.

Speaker:

I know you guys have shared a little piece of culture before, but I'm gonna

Speaker:

ask you to share something new today.

Speaker:

So what have you guys been interested in recently?

Speaker:

I'll go first.

Speaker:

So what I've been getting into particularly with these, with the past

Speaker:

couple of months where it's about minus 20 out and can't go out on my grill

Speaker:

or do any smoking, uh, on the grill.

Speaker:

Uh, I've gotten into sous vide, um, if is anyone familiar with that?

Speaker:

I, yeah, it's,

Speaker:

Yeah, I have one!

Speaker:

It's pretty cool.

Speaker:

It's, uh, you're essentially cooking steak, or you name it in nice hot water.

Speaker:

Um, and it's, it's cooking it to the perfect temperature you want and then

Speaker:

do whatever you wanna do after that.

Speaker:

But yeah, I've been getting into that a lot.

Speaker:

Now that the weather's starting to turn around, I'm getting the,

Speaker:

breaking the grill out more.

Speaker:

But, uh, but I'll tell you what, that sous vide is, is pretty cool.

Speaker:

Highly recommended for, for anybody who, who, if you, if you can't cook, it's

Speaker:

a good way to, to not mess things up.

Speaker:

And if you can cook, you can, you can tailor things around pretty nice.

Speaker:

So yeah, I've gotten into that.

Speaker:

Um, be careful because once you get into it, you just start to go down

Speaker:

a rabbit hole, but it's, it's fun.

Speaker:

Yeah, it is really fun.

Speaker:

It makes you feel very professional when you use it.

Speaker:

Oh, yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker:

I start speaking French.

Speaker:

I, I have to ask for tips from Dan, because I did it in the past and

Speaker:

sometime the plastic bag is just like ballooning and it just flows up.

Speaker:

So

Speaker:

yeah, you gotta get a good sealer sometimes.

Speaker:

Double seal.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I, yeah, that's, there are, there is a learning curve.

Speaker:

There's a small learning curve.

Speaker:

Um, but once you do it, it's, it's, it's worth it.

Speaker:

So for me, I don't have any new activity apart from the pickleball that

Speaker:

we discussed last time with Hassam.

Speaker:

Um, but lately I, I, I was very interesting in how time different travel

Speaker:

and jet lag work, because we just came back from trip to Thailand and then

Speaker:

that's the first time that my 20 month old daughter flew transpacific and then

Speaker:

we were so concerned about like the time difference, 13 hour time difference.

Speaker:

It turned out to be, she was fine in one day, but the problem is that

Speaker:

there, her parents is doing so badly in like five days, not recover at all.

Speaker:

So I'm really surprised that, you know, when you talk about 13 hour

Speaker:

difference jet lag, it doesn't apply to 20 months old daughter.

Speaker:

And I feel like that must have been your daughter that I saw at ID week, right?

Speaker:

Yes you did.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Very cute.

Speaker:

What about you, Hussam?

Speaker:

So I'll go.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I haven't also been engaging in a lot of new activities, but I, I have

Speaker:

been very busy 'cause I'm actually a, a new father now, so I have twins

Speaker:

and, um, I think there's a lot of culture around that to, to be said.

Speaker:

Um, surely a lot of, um, family visits that I was not expecting.

Speaker:

And, uh, a lot of gifts, which I'm very happy with, a lot, a lot of gifts

Speaker:

and a lot of things to learn really.

Speaker:

So I've just been busy trying to figure out how to become a father.

Speaker:

Uh

Speaker:

Oh, congrats!

Speaker:

I'm sure you have your hands full.

Speaker:

Um, well I'm very glad to welcome you guys back.

Speaker:

I'll, um, just plug that you were here on Febrile back for a State

Speaker:

of the Art Review on vascular graft infections, which I'll put a link to, um,

Speaker:

hopefully people have listened to that.

Speaker:

But this is a different article that focused on complexities of cardiac

Speaker:

device infections, and I think all of these questions that we know sound

Speaker:

simple, but actually are quite complex.

Speaker:

Is the device infected?

Speaker:

Should it be taken out?

Speaker:

When it is taken out, when is it safe to put it back in?

Speaker:

Um, and so we will walk through a case today, but I just wanna start more

Speaker:

generally and would love to hear about how you think about the way these infections

Speaker:

should be handled or maybe your experience handling them at your institution.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Sara, that's great.

Speaker:

Thank you so much for having us.

Speaker:

You know, these, as you mentioned, these are, are not always so

Speaker:

straightforward to make the diagnosis of the device being infected.

Speaker:

And I think that's probably the, the big issue here is or at least the

Speaker:

common goal that we share is we wanna keep devices that are not infected

Speaker:

in the patient's body, and when they are infected, we wanna take them out.

Speaker:

And that's much more easy, easier said than done.

Speaker:

In some cases, it's readily apparent it's infected, and in a lot of other cases

Speaker:

where it becomes very challenging, it's difficult to make that diagnosis, and

Speaker:

hopefully through this podcast, we'll be able to provide our listeners with a

Speaker:

good strategy on how to approach these patients and, and hopefully make it a

Speaker:

little bit easier to achieve that goal.

Speaker:

When a patient gets admitted to our institution with concern

Speaker:

for a device infection, it, this is not a one person show, it's

Speaker:

gonna be multiple teams involved.

Speaker:

They may be admitted to, let's say, our hospital medicine service, so that

Speaker:

involves our hospitalists as the main care team and will often require consultation

Speaker:

with infectious disease, uh, as well as our heart rhythm or electrophysiology

Speaker:

team as well, to be involved.

Speaker:

That's just a couple elements of the team.

Speaker:

Then you have to factor in the possible need for echocardiography, so that brings

Speaker:

in our echocardiographers, uh, possibly PET imaging, NDM scans and so on, uh,

Speaker:

radiology, nuclear radiology as well.

Speaker:

And that's just part of the team and beyond.

Speaker:

So if you do think it's infected.

Speaker:

You may have to get general surgery on board for device removal and involved in

Speaker:

pocket management after device removed, possibly even plastic surgery depending

Speaker:

on the situation and the location as well as cardiovascular or thoracic

Speaker:

surgery to be on, on standby as backup.

Speaker:

As taking the device out is not without risk, risk of significant bleeding,

Speaker:

major bleeding, and possibly death.

Speaker:

So having cardiovascular surgery or thoracic surgery on standby for backup

Speaker:

support following device removal for any complications is, is critical.

Speaker:

So that's kind of start to somewhat finish.

Speaker:

And there's even more to that is okay, a device comes out, does the device need,

Speaker:

does a new device need to go back in?

Speaker:

And that's where our cardiologists and heart rhythm specialists come into play.

Speaker:

So that's kind of the approach.

Speaker:

And again, there's some things that go on in between.

Speaker:

Are they bacteremic or not?

Speaker:

Is there something on the echo, on the heart valve or do the lead itself or both?

Speaker:

And then do they need a new device put back in and when

Speaker:

do you put that back in it?

Speaker:

So with that I'll turn things over to, uh, to Mac and Hussam to

Speaker:

go further into those scenarios.

Speaker:

Excellent.

Speaker:

Alright, well I'm gonna introduce our patient that we're gonna be

Speaker:

taking care of in the hospital.

Speaker:

We meet a 65-year-old woman with morbid obesity, diabetes and a cardiac

Speaker:

device who presented to clinic with three days of pain, redness, and

Speaker:

swelling at the generator pocket.

Speaker:

So we're gonna pause right here this early and ask about how

Speaker:

should we start our assessment?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Uh, as Dan mentioned, CIED infection is a very complex syndrome that

Speaker:

require the whole village of multiple people help taking care of this.

Speaker:

And the definition of the CIED infection itself has changed multiple times since

Speaker:

the first statement came out in 2003, and then the most recent one that Dan is

Speaker:

a lead author came out in 2023 to 2024, um, provide a variety of the definition

Speaker:

of the infection, but in general, um, when we talk about a CIED infection,

Speaker:

we need to think about two main thing.

Speaker:

The first one is that the pocket part, and then the second one is

Speaker:

the infection of the lead or valve.

Speaker:

So when we talk about infection of the lead and valve, we call

Speaker:

that CIED-related endocarditis.

Speaker:

The pocket itself can happen without endocarditis.

Speaker:

So that's the reason why any part of the device is infected, the

Speaker:

whole system become infected.

Speaker:

That's the reason how we, um, define the infection.

Speaker:

So the most challenging thing is how to diagnose the CIED

Speaker:

related infective endocarditis.

Speaker:

Because with the pocket generator side infection, you can get that from the

Speaker:

physical exam in most of the case, which is, if we ask what is the most common

Speaker:

presentation of CIED infection, it is mainly the pocket generator site, which

Speaker:

has happened in two-thirds of the cases, so one third of the cases will have the

Speaker:

device endocarditis as well, but we can talk more of why it's so challenging to

Speaker:

diagnose whether the patient has device related infective endocarditis or not.

Speaker:

So we learned a little bit more.

Speaker:

This patient had their device implanted eight years earlier for a history of

Speaker:

sudden cardiac death with a recent generator revision two months ago.

Speaker:

She also had fatigue, fever, and chills.

Speaker:

And our physical exam shows erythema, tenderness, and fluctuation

Speaker:

at the generator pocket site.

Speaker:

There isn't any purulent drainage, sinus tract formation or device exposure noted.

Speaker:

Um, so what is our best next step?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So basically, if, if I summarize this question, you're basically, I'm being

Speaker:

asked to, uh, see a patient who's presenting with pocket site inflammation.

Speaker:

That's, that's called it inflammation.

Speaker:

And so my job here is to figure out whether or not this

Speaker:

inflammation is related to infection or not infectious, right?

Speaker:

Because this soon after a revision only two months out, there are

Speaker:

other non-infectious causes of pocket site inflammation, uh,

Speaker:

such as allergic reaction to the component or maybe a hematoma.

Speaker:

There are certain tools that we could use to help us make that, uh, decision.

Speaker:

And the first tools are history and physical exam, which is just

Speaker:

similar to what we use with any syndrome that we encounter, right?

Speaker:

So there are certain things in history that are important to tease out.

Speaker:

Uh, for example, in order to assess the risk of infection, you have

Speaker:

to look at the age of the patient.

Speaker:

You need to look at the complexity of the device.

Speaker:

Is this a multiple lead?

Speaker:

Is this a pacemaker?

Speaker:

A CRT-D, you need to know whether or not that this is the first device.

Speaker:

Is this a revision?

Speaker:

How many times has it been revised before?

Speaker:

Uh, what are the comorbidities of the other cardiovascular devices?

Speaker:

So all of this, this helps you define the host and then you'll get an understanding

Speaker:

of what is the, uh, risk of infection.

Speaker:

The next thing is you wanna, uh, look for signs and symptoms that will

Speaker:

give you a definite diagnosis of CIED infection because based on history

Speaker:

and physical exam, there are certain signs that can actually confirm

Speaker:

that you have an infection without having to do any additional testing.

Speaker:

Um, and those are not frequent.

Speaker:

There's not too much of those.

Speaker:

There's maybe three to four signs and some of those, you know, pus

Speaker:

coming out from the pocket, uh, sinus tract, uh, device exposure,

Speaker:

which this patient does not have.

Speaker:

So if this patient had those signs, then just by history and physical

Speaker:

exam, I will be able to tell there is a CIED infection and the next

Speaker:

step will be to do a blood culture.

Speaker:

Because you wanna know whether or not the patient is bacteremic, not to make the

Speaker:

diagnosis, the diagnosis is already made.

Speaker:

The blood cultures help you, uh, because if they're positive, they're gonna

Speaker:

determine your next step in management.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

But this patient does not fall in this category.

Speaker:

She's presenting with, uh, signs of inflammation, but there is

Speaker:

no signs or symptoms that are definite for CIED infection.

Speaker:

So then the question is, what other tools can we use?

Speaker:

And really this soon after revision in my mind, the only thing that we would do is

Speaker:

a blood culture for this patient because I won't rely on CRP, ESR, white blood

Speaker:

cell count this soon after the revision?

Speaker:

Because they're not gonna be specific for CIED infection.

Speaker:

I also don't rely so much on imaging like ultrasound, CT scans or PET CT this early

Speaker:

after revision because I would expect to see something and it'll still not tell

Speaker:

me whether or not this is an infected abscess, for example, or a hematoma.

Speaker:

So in my mind, uh, for those patients, the only thing that you could rely on is

Speaker:

really, is a blood culture at this point, because if the blood culture is positive.

Speaker:

Then that also will upgrade this patient from an uncertain category to a

Speaker:

confirmed or a definite CIED infection.

Speaker:

Whenever you have a local pocket inflammation and you have a positive

Speaker:

blood culture, that by definition is CIED infection, and so then

Speaker:

we would manage it accordingly.

Speaker:

The more difficult situation is if there is negative blood culture because

Speaker:

then you're stuck again with this challenging question, how do I prove

Speaker:

that this patient has a CIED infection?

Speaker:

And it becomes more challenging if there is no systemic symptoms.

Speaker:

You know, this patient actually has systemic symptoms, so

Speaker:

maybe it's a bit easier.

Speaker:

But if someone comes in with mild inflammation, maybe just minimal

Speaker:

swelling, no systemic symptoms, this could just be a hematoma and inflammatory

Speaker:

reaction from allergic reaction.

Speaker:

It could be even a superficial cellulitis.

Speaker:

So this is where it becomes controversial.

Speaker:

Some physicians in those situations would put patients on oral antibiotics

Speaker:

empirically, uh, considering this may be a superficial cellulitis.

Speaker:

And then they will just follow very closely to see how they respond.

Speaker:

Other physicians would not put antibiotics and they will just follow

Speaker:

them clinically and see how things change because, you know, give it some time

Speaker:

and let it declare itself basically.

Speaker:

But I would say this is, these situations are the less straightforward situations.

Speaker:

I, I think it might be helpful to comment on pocket infection and,

Speaker:

and not aspirating the pocket.

Speaker:

Because I think maybe for residents and earlier trainees that that

Speaker:

might not seem intuitive when we're usually asking for a sample.

Speaker:

Would you be willing to just say a couple sentences on that

Speaker:

so you know there is some physicians that might consider doing an ultrasound

Speaker:

guided aspiration if there's a fluid pocket, send that to for culture,

Speaker:

see if it looks like pus or not.

Speaker:

Um, in, in our center, we really don't like to do that.

Speaker:

We try to avoid that as much as possible.

Speaker:

And the main reason is because if you're not able to confirm the

Speaker:

diagnosis of CIED infection based on blood cultures and physical exam.

Speaker:

We worry that if it's not infected, we're gonna now introduce an

Speaker:

infection, uh, into the pockets.

Speaker:

So we don't really like to do that much.

Speaker:

And I, I, I personally have never seen it being done.

Speaker:

I don't know if Dan or, or Mac has seen that done before.

Speaker:

I have seen it done in other devices.

Speaker:

So we do have a lot of deep brain stimulator devices, for example here,

Speaker:

which they have generator pockets and a lot of times the surgeons here

Speaker:

would do an aspiration of the fluid.

Speaker:

Um, but I have not seen a cardiovascular disease, uh, physician or an infectious

Speaker:

disease physician here in the center in Mayo Clinic that would do an

Speaker:

ultrasound guided aspiration of the pocket, just because we worry that we

Speaker:

might now introduce an infection and it leads to bacteremia and endocarditis.

Speaker:

Yeah, I, I agree with Hassam that I, um, never done.

Speaker:

Um, but Dan can also add onto that too, that, um, I think

Speaker:

there was a study from Israel.

Speaker:

They put a catheter directly into the pocket and try to infuse

Speaker:

antibiotics into the pocket in the setting of pocket infection.

Speaker:

But I don't think that has been widely used.

Speaker:

And that is only in the investigational, um, study rather than clinical practice.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So, so Mac in, in that study where they put a catheter in, they

Speaker:

were instilling antibiotics as a way to, to treat an infection

Speaker:

rather than to make the diagnosis.

Speaker:

But from a diagnostic standpoint, uh, typically why, why we would advise

Speaker:

against doing an aspiration of the pocket would be, what if there is no infection?

Speaker:

You may have potentially introduced infection now.

Speaker:

So every time you go into that pocket, you run the risk of leading

Speaker:

to infection of that device.

Speaker:

So in this patient's history, in our example here, they had

Speaker:

a revision two months ago.

Speaker:

So that's a big red flag that they went back into that pocket and now is

Speaker:

showing up with some pocket findings and systemic symptoms that your suspicion

Speaker:

for infection really has to go up here.

Speaker:

Now I've seen where you can get an ultrasound of the pocket and,

Speaker:

sometimes you could say, Hey, this might look like an abscess.

Speaker:

That might tilt you more towards this being infected, but, uh, but

Speaker:

putting a needle and entering that pocket is very uncommon to do and

Speaker:

typically advise against that.

Speaker:

Thanks guys.

Speaker:

The team has grabbed two sets of blood cultures.

Speaker:

These were drawn before vancomycin was administered, and in these

Speaker:

cultures we have gram positive cocci resembling Streptococci

Speaker:

that grew after about 14 hours.

Speaker:

Um, so what would be our approach now?

Speaker:

Yeah, so this gets interesting now.

Speaker:

So given this patient's history, now findings of positive blood

Speaker:

cultures, I think doing the right thing is starting the vancomycin.

Speaker:

You know, this could either be a Streptococcus or an Enterococcus.

Speaker:

So I think starting the antibiotic at this point, would recommend

Speaker:

that and encourage that.

Speaker:

I think the big thing here is the organism is very important when you

Speaker:

approach cardiac device infections.

Speaker:

This is your pretest probability of when you get that echocardiogram with

Speaker:

a, in a patient who has a positive blood culture is gonna be critical.

Speaker:

So in somebody like this with their history with an organism that's growing

Speaker:

either Strep or Enterococcus, now my suspicion is, is very high, uh,

Speaker:

that this device is infected and the recommendation would be to take it out.

Speaker:

There's more discussion there, and we'll likely talk about this

Speaker:

later when it comes time to make that decision to take things out.

Speaker:

But I think your, your next best step here is, does this patient

Speaker:

have valvular or lead endocarditis?

Speaker:

And, and really the focus is on valvular endocarditis as that

Speaker:

has downstream ramifications if the valve has a vegetation.

Speaker:

So if there's valvular endocarditis, your duration of therapy is gonna be longer.

Speaker:

So you're not gonna treat this as just a standard bloodstream

Speaker:

infection or bacteremia with, say, two weeks of antibiotics.

Speaker:

You're likely gonna go down the route of four to six weeks.

Speaker:

Uh, so you can see how that changes your therapy there.

Speaker:

As well as it'll have implications on reimplantation if, if the patient

Speaker:

needs it, on timing of reimplantation.

Speaker:

So instead of 72 hours, you may wait up to two weeks to put a new

Speaker:

device back in if it's needed.

Speaker:

That's the next step in this patient's, uh, route here of

Speaker:

getting an echocardiogram, a TTE and TEE would be recommended.

Speaker:

And again, you're looking for valvular vegetations or

Speaker:

any vegetations on the lead..

Speaker:

That's, that's again, gonna direct us to our next step.

Speaker:

That's perfect.

Speaker:

And, um, you guys in the, for those who have the paper, that figure two roadmap

Speaker:

is about where we're talking about and Hassam started talking earlier about

Speaker:

the importance of knowing if someone has a bloodstream infection or not.

Speaker:

And I think one way we can also reframe this patient is how would

Speaker:

we think about them differently if they had come in and we identified a

Speaker:

blood infection, but there's no signs of generator pocket site infection.

Speaker:

How do you reason through what to do for those patients?

Speaker:

Yeah, and I think this is a very important question because you run

Speaker:

into the situation all the time when the patient got hospitalized

Speaker:

with bacteremia and they have

Speaker:

pacemaker or ICD in place.

Speaker:

Sometime, we don't' know what to do about them.

Speaker:

Should we do echocardiogram?

Speaker:

Should we not?

Speaker:

Should we just monitor?

Speaker:

So it's very, very important question and not a lot of study,

Speaker:

um, looking into this scenario.

Speaker:

So as you mentioned, it's very clear if the patient walk to you and have

Speaker:

the pus come out of the pocket.

Speaker:

We know that device need to come out no matter what, but when the patient come in

Speaker:

with bacteremia, it very difficult to know whether the device is infected or not.

Speaker:

I think the main principle that we would work on is the same as the patient

Speaker:

with vascular graft and other device.

Speaker:

So it's very depend on, um, the pathogen specific.

Speaker:

For example, if the patient has a Staph aureus bacteremia, you would

Speaker:

be very confident that you need to look into the device itself.

Speaker:

However, if the patient has like very localized symptom of, for example, UTI

Speaker:

and have a gram-negative bacteremia.

Speaker:

The chance that the e coli or other gram-negative would,

Speaker:

the device is very low.

Speaker:

So all those situations, you do not need to specifically look at the device

Speaker:

itself, either with TTE or other modality.

Speaker:

We always run into the issue when we encounter the

Speaker:

pathogen that we're uncertain.

Speaker:

For example, Staph aureus, definitely high risk.

Speaker:

Um, coag negative Staph, definitely high risk.

Speaker:

Enterococci.

Speaker:

I would also throw, throw into the high risk category as well.

Speaker:

The same as Strep viridans group.

Speaker:

But from time to time when we run into other gram positives,

Speaker:

other streptococci or high risk gram-negatives, such

Speaker:

as Serratia or Pseudomonas.

Speaker:

From time to time's, very difficult to tell.

Speaker:

So we need to, um, think about other factors as well.

Speaker:

For example, does the patient has prolonged, um, bloodstream

Speaker:

infection, um, are we able to identify the source of infection?

Speaker:

Does the patient have cardiac device or other valvular processes as well.

Speaker:

The more factor that the patient has, um, the more we think that the

Speaker:

device might be infected, for example, prolonged bacteremia, community

Speaker:

onset, and we could not find a source.

Speaker:

So that's the time when we need to look closely into the device.

Speaker:

And one thing that I also wanna mention is that, the prior study also came up with a

Speaker:

multiple scoring system to see, especially with the Staph aureus, um, in the past, in

Speaker:

around 2015, a score called predict SAB.

Speaker:

So we try to, um, plug in the clinical factors that I just mentioned in, um,

Speaker:

how long has the patient been bacteremic, and everything like that into to see

Speaker:

that if the patient has a Staph aureus bacteremia, what is the likelihood

Speaker:

of the underlying device is infected?

Speaker:

And then the most recent one, the study group from Europe also came out with

Speaker:

a score called a CTEPP score, which coming from like community acquisition,

Speaker:

time to positivity, embolization, risk factors for IE, and persistent bacteremia.

Speaker:

So we can use those score to fit into the clinical contact and see how

Speaker:

how high of a risk that the patient who come in with bacteremia has to

Speaker:

have underlying device infection.

Speaker:

For other organisms, we still do not have a good score.

Speaker:

We apply the same score that out there to predict the endocarditis, for example,

Speaker:

like HANDOC for streptococci or DENOVA score for enterococci, but all of those

Speaker:

are not specific to the device itself, but I think it's good enough plus the clinical

Speaker:

judgment to see whether we really need to send the patient to transesophageal

Speaker:

echocardiogram or do additional PET CT.

Speaker:

So I think it's two main thing, depend on the pathogen specific virulence,

Speaker:

and then depend on the nature of the bact itself and the host factor.

Speaker:

So for this patient, uh, they underwent TEE, which demonstrated

Speaker:

a small echo density at the atrial aspect of the CIED lead.

Speaker:

There's no valvular vegetations observed.

Speaker:

Here we can talk about challenges in interpreting TEE findings.

Speaker:

And then I think the other question that we've started alluding to

Speaker:

is, um, when when to use PET CT.

Speaker:

And so I'd love to hear about how you decide on when to reach for that modality.

Speaker:

Okay, perfect.

Speaker:

To best answer this question, really figure three in the article that we have,

Speaker:

uh, actually talks a lot about this.

Speaker:

Um, so if we are looking at the patient.

Speaker:

Our main question, you know, what is the role of the ECHO here?

Speaker:

Um, to me, you know, we've already made the diagnosis of CIED infection for

Speaker:

this specific patient just based on physical exam and positive blood culture.

Speaker:

So the echo here is not really for diagnostic purposes specifically

Speaker:

because we are already labeling this patient as having CIED infection

Speaker:

and we're gonna treat accordingly.

Speaker:

The purpose of the echo here is to tell us what is the duration of treatment.

Speaker:

When is it okay to reimplant a device?

Speaker:

And this will really depend on whether or not the valve has, uh, vegetations

Speaker:

or is there any vegetations only on the lead or is there no vegetation?

Speaker:

So really the echo helps us determine these two questions for this patient.

Speaker:

The more challenging situation is if the patient had come in with bloodstream

Speaker:

infection and no pocket site infection, or no pocket site inflammation.

Speaker:

So in those patients, the echo, uh, is done for diagnostic purposes.

Speaker:

We are trying to get more information to decide whether or not the device

Speaker:

is actually infected and if whether or not we should treat it as such.

Speaker:

So this is where the role of ECHO becomes more critical.

Speaker:

And when we're thinking about echo findings, I can think

Speaker:

of three scenarios really.

Speaker:

The first scenario is you do an echo and you find valve vegetations, so that is

Speaker:

actually the most straightforward scenario because if you do see that, then you're

Speaker:

saying this patient has endocarditis, valvular endocarditis, and that in itself

Speaker:

equates to device infection, and you're going to have to discuss extracting the

Speaker:

device and treating for endocarditis with six weeks of antibiotics.

Speaker:

The other two scenarios are less straightforward, and those include the

Speaker:

second scenario, which is you do an echo and you find a lesion on the lead, but

Speaker:

you're not seeing lesions elsewhere.

Speaker:

So kind of similar to the echo we're seeing here.

Speaker:

The third scenario is you do an echo and you don't see any lesions.

Speaker:

Now, none of these two scenarios are either sensitive or specific for device

Speaker:

infection because you could have a lesion on the lead that is a sterile

Speaker:

thrombus, and it's actually common to have clots on those leads, especially if

Speaker:

those leads have been there for a while.

Speaker:

And there is nothing on the echo that can specifically tell you if

Speaker:

this clot is infected or sterile.

Speaker:

I cannot tell whether or not this lead vegetation or this echo density on

Speaker:

the lead is a, an infected vegetation or it's a thrombus that's sterile.

Speaker:

Even the third scenario where you don't see any lesions, I'm still not able to

Speaker:

confidently rule out, uh, a device lead endocarditis because you could still

Speaker:

miss that on the echo, especially if you can't visualize the entire lead.

Speaker:

And so when it comes to these two scenarios, I think your decision

Speaker:

has to be based on other factors like the type of pathogen, which

Speaker:

Mac has spoken about just now, and also the burden of the bacteremia.

Speaker:

Community acquired bacteremia.

Speaker:

High grade multiple sets, persistent.

Speaker:

No primary focus.

Speaker:

If you have this high burden bacteremia and if you have a high

Speaker:

risk pathogen like staph aureus, then in my mind I would still

Speaker:

consider this device likely infected.

Speaker:

And a lot of experts actually would go ahead and discuss extracting the device

Speaker:

without doing further testing because in their mind, the pretest probability

Speaker:

for device infection is already very high with things like Staph aureus

Speaker:

bacteremia, high burden of bacteremia.

Speaker:

But when you're talking about other bacterias, like maybe gram-negatives,

Speaker:

uh, Clostridium, Cutibacterium, er, other types of bacteria, you cannot make that

Speaker:

assumption because the pretest probability that the device is infected is not

Speaker:

that high, not similar to staph aureus.

Speaker:

And that's when you start wondering, is there any other test that I could

Speaker:

do to help me make that decision?

Speaker:

And that's where PET CT comes in.

Speaker:

And you really, if you look at, there are so many different societies

Speaker:

now that have strengthened their language and statement about using

Speaker:

pet CT for, uh, device infection.

Speaker:

Ever since 2019 up until now, they've been talking about the

Speaker:

use of PET CT for those cases.

Speaker:

And we know that PET CT actually has a very decent sensitivity and

Speaker:

specificity for device infection.

Speaker:

And so a lot of big centers that have PET CTs, they will probably go ahead

Speaker:

and get a PET CT for those cases.

Speaker:

And if it's positive, they call the device infected.

Speaker:

If it's negative, they say the device is probably not infected.

Speaker:

But we have to be very careful and cautious because there is,

Speaker:

there are cons to the PET ct.

Speaker:

The biggest con really is that not every center will have it

Speaker:

accessible or readily accessible.

Speaker:

So some centers can't just get a PET CT and the longer you wait and the

Speaker:

longer that the patient has been on antibiotics, the less reliable that

Speaker:

PET CT becomes because we think the antibiotic can decrease inflammation

Speaker:

and, and so, you know, if you're not able to get PET CT very quickly.

Speaker:

It might not be such a tempting test to get.

Speaker:

The other cons for the PET CT is that while we think, and we know

Speaker:

it's sensitive and specific, it's mostly for pocket site infections.

Speaker:

So it's not that sensitive for lead site infection.

Speaker:

And, and that's why some experts, when they have a high pretest probability

Speaker:

for, uh, device infection, like with Staph aureus high burden bacteremia,

Speaker:

they would not get a PET CT.

Speaker:

They will just discuss extracting the device because they think even

Speaker:

if we do a PET CT and it comes back negative, it still does not rule

Speaker:

out a lead endocarditis because it's not as sensitive for leads as

Speaker:

it's for pocket site infections.

Speaker:

So that's actually one very important thing to keep in mind.

Speaker:

So to summarize things, the role of PET CT seems to be more tempting

Speaker:

when you have an intermediate pretest probability for device infection.

Speaker:

Because in those cases you think that if it's a negative PET ct, then it adds

Speaker:

another reassuring layer that the patient probably does not have a device infection.

Speaker:

Now we spoke about the PET CT, what about centers that can't get a PET CT?

Speaker:

What is one other approach that they could consider?

Speaker:

Again, if they think that their pretest probability for, uh, device infection

Speaker:

is not that high, one approach would be to actually treat the bacteremia.

Speaker:

Stop the antibiotics after treatment and do surveillance of blood

Speaker:

cultures about five to seven days after you stop the antibiotics.

Speaker:

If the bacteremia recurs and you still don't have another source, then it's

Speaker:

probably a device infection and then you have to treat it accordingly.

Speaker:

And so that's kind of, you know, talking about the echoes and PET CTs and, and what

Speaker:

to do if you can't do a PET CT as well.

Speaker:

Yeah, I, I just wanna add one point is that apart from the accessibility of the

Speaker:

PET CT, the cost is also, um, another concern, especially when we have a

Speaker:

different reimbursement system, whether it's gonna cover outpatient, gonna cover

Speaker:

inpatient or whether it's a cancer or non-cancer indication, but surprisingly

Speaker:

in Europe, they have no issue with this.

Speaker:

With the reimbursement.

Speaker:

That's the reason why if you look at the European CIED guideline, um, in

Speaker:

2019, and also the update in guideline in 2023, they, they state very clearly

Speaker:

that if the patient has a Staph aureus bacteremia with the device in place,

Speaker:

um, they recommend every single patient to get a PET CT because apart from the

Speaker:

device itself, it can also identify those metastatic foci and everything like that.

Speaker:

But that's also reflects that in Europe, they don't have a lot

Speaker:

of problem in reimbursement that we still seeing here in the us.

Speaker:

One, one other question that I think needs a lot of thought and more

Speaker:

studies to, to answer that question is the mortality and morbidity benefit

Speaker:

of getting those PET CTs right?

Speaker:

Especially like when we're talking about finding out where other sites of seeding.

Speaker:

Uh, you know, like for example, if you have staph aureus bacteremia,

Speaker:

did it seed somewhere else?

Speaker:

Is there a deep abscess?

Speaker:

And the PET CT will help you find that out.

Speaker:

But there are studies showing that it does not really maybe affect

Speaker:

mortality or morbidity that much.

Speaker:

So I think that's a very important question also to look more into in

Speaker:

the, in future studies, if I get a pet CT for those cases, does it

Speaker:

really change the overall outcome in terms of morbidity and mortality?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Thank you guys so much for covering that.

Speaker:

It's a, it's a big topic and obviously a conversation point on many consults.

Speaker:

Well, despite some of her comorbid conditions, the cardiology team

Speaker:

does recommend complete CIED extraction for this patient.

Speaker:

The patient and her family have expressed some reluctance due to

Speaker:

concerns about the complications.

Speaker:

And so how do you structure your discussion when you're

Speaker:

in this type of scenario?

Speaker:

Yeah, it's a great question and that comes up in every case, right?

Speaker:

It's a procedure that carries significant risk and potential bad outcomes.

Speaker:

Granted, it's, it's low for it to happen.

Speaker:

It's quoted anywhere between one to 2%, depending on the center and their

Speaker:

experience and expertise available.

Speaker:

And, and they can be very serious complications that include bleeding

Speaker:

to the superior vena cava, you can get a tear, uh, you can get cardiac

Speaker:

tamponade among other things.

Speaker:

Uh, and, and death is, is a potential risk.

Speaker:

So those are real complications from device removal.

Speaker:

So that's why we wanna be as certain as possible that the

Speaker:

device is infected, taking it out.

Speaker:

Uh, which again, as we, as we've been talking about, it's not always

Speaker:

as straightforward, but you have to balance that with, well, what

Speaker:

if we just keep the device in and put the patient on antibiotics?

Speaker:

How well does that work?

Speaker:

There's been very limited data, uh, out there looking long term

Speaker:

suppression with chronic antibiotic use.

Speaker:

Actually only one study I can think of that looked at that, and the data

Speaker:

from there showed that it's an option.

Speaker:

But it should be one of your final options of suppression.

Speaker:

And every effort should be made to, to remove the device.

Speaker:

And the reason for that is there's risk of relapse with device

Speaker:

retention, uh, especially if there's valvular or CIED related infective

Speaker:

endocarditis, keeping a device in is associated with high mortality, uh,

Speaker:

as well as high rates of relapse.

Speaker:

So, so again, you're in this balancing act of, well, if we keep the device in,

Speaker:

there's risks the infection can come back or potentially we may not be able

Speaker:

to control the infection versus while there's real risk to the procedure, as

Speaker:

I mentioned, uh, ways to approach the patient is, is making them aware of these

Speaker:

potential risks and complications from going for device removal, but also the

Speaker:

risk of not going for device removal.

Speaker:

This is something where you're gonna make a shared decision

Speaker:

approach with the patient.

Speaker:

And, other things that are important to consider is these devices should be

Speaker:

extracted at centers of excellence where they're doing this on, on a regular basis.

Speaker:

The providers that are removing these devices should have significant

Speaker:

experience, uh, with this and have a support system, backing them up.

Speaker:

And what I mean by that is vascular surgery if there is a tear to the

Speaker:

SVC or other, other major vessels.

Speaker:

Cardiothoracic surgery, on standby, ready to go if there is a complication as

Speaker:

these patients may require opening their chest to repair from these complications.

Speaker:

So, um, so again, it's a discussion you gotta have with each and every patient,

Speaker:

and come together what you think is best for that patient at that time.

Speaker:

There's so many variables that come into play and listening to the patient and

Speaker:

their family and what are their concerns.

Speaker:

You know, it may be they're not worried about the one in a hundred chance, they're

Speaker:

more worried about the pain or something else happening, or maybe they, they have

Speaker:

a tough time waking up from sedation and so, so really asking the patient and their

Speaker:

family, what, what are their concerns?

Speaker:

We have our concerns and what we think is concerns, but may not

Speaker:

always match what the patient is concerned about or their family.

Speaker:

Oh, we left this case a little broad.

Speaker:

I was gonna ask now about how you guys set your final antibiotic plan

Speaker:

and the question of when you can reimplant when a device is removed.

Speaker:

Uh, we didn't pinpoint a specific bug.

Speaker:

'cause I think maybe today our goal is to talk more broadly.

Speaker:

But yeah, how would you approach that?

Speaker:

Yeah, so I think that's the question that we all get asked about.

Speaker:

After the device is removed, when is the appropriate time to place this back.

Speaker:

I think it's very depend on what kind of syndrome that the patient has.

Speaker:

So the principle is that, if the patient has the vegetation on the

Speaker:

valve, we would prolong the time of reimplantation as long as possible.

Speaker:

And most of the time we use 14 days.

Speaker:

Because our hypothetical concern is that if we put the new device too soon

Speaker:

and the patient has the vegetation persistently on the valve, we concerned

Speaker:

that vegetation will become a new foci and eventually infect that device,

Speaker:

the new device that was just placed.

Speaker:

If a patient has vegetation on the valve, we would wanna wait as long

Speaker:

as possible, 14 day if possible.

Speaker:

Um, if the patient doesn't have vegetation on the valve, just a lead

Speaker:

vegetation or no vegetation at all.

Speaker:

At all.

Speaker:

And then the device got extracted, we would wait for 48 to 72 hours, um,

Speaker:

after the first negative blood culture.

Speaker:

So as long as the patient has clear from the bacteremia perspective we

Speaker:

should be able to put the new device in.

Speaker:

Some study in Europe also, if the patient doesn't have bacteremia, um, the sooner

Speaker:

that you can place a new device in actually in the same day, so they put a

Speaker:

new device in, in the contralateral side if the patient doesn't have bacteremia.

Speaker:

So I think the key is that as long as the patient is no longer bacteremic, it should

Speaker:

be safe to place a new device unless the patient has a vegetation on the valve.

Speaker:

So I'm going to touch a little bit about interim strategy because that's also an

Speaker:

important topic that we need to discuss.

Speaker:

Um, mainly what device gonna be placed is depend on what was the indication that

Speaker:

the patient has device in the first place.

Speaker:

Maybe the patient no longer need device, which is great.

Speaker:

We don't need to have a time or new device implant.

Speaker:

But let's say if the patient continues to have indication, for example,

Speaker:

ventricular arrhythmia or cardiac pacing that need a new device.

Speaker:

So that's need to be discussed with the electrophysiologist.

Speaker:

Because if, for example, if they do not wanna put the intravascular

Speaker:

device, maybe we have the alternative.

Speaker:

For example, if the patient who need a cardiac pacing without the ICD

Speaker:

function, we can use the leadless pacemaker in that situation.

Speaker:

But if the patient doesn't need a cardiac pacing but need the ICD function,

Speaker:

we can use the subcutaneous or the extravascular ICD, um, in that situation.

Speaker:

But from time to time, if the patient needs both, we may not be

Speaker:

able to find any interim strategy, especially when the patient that

Speaker:

we wanna prolong the implantation.

Speaker:

So that's the reason why I said prolong as much as possible because

Speaker:

when we say 14 day, it's not always possible in the clinical practice.

Speaker:

And regarding the antibiotics after the extraction, if the patient has

Speaker:

a valve vegetation, we would treat the same as infective endocarditis,

Speaker:

which is four to six weeks.

Speaker:

But if the patient doesn't have the vegetation on the valve, we can do

Speaker:

shorter than that which is 2-4 weeks.

Speaker:

Great.

Speaker:

And after some discussion of risk, risks and benefits, the patient and

Speaker:

family declined the device extraction.

Speaker:

At this point, the patient's been on vancomycin, blood cultures have cleared.

Speaker:

So what would be your strategy here and planning for follow-up once

Speaker:

they're in the outpatient setting?

Speaker:

As long as the device remains, unfortunately there is no objective

Speaker:

test that we could do after a treatment.

Speaker:

So let's say we we're gonna treat the syndrome for four

Speaker:

to six weeks with antibiotics.

Speaker:

After we finish this treatment, there is no objective test that

Speaker:

will tell us the infection is completely eradicated from the device.

Speaker:

And so to simplify things, those cases would require to be on

Speaker:

antimicrobial suppression after you finish the treatment phase.

Speaker:

Of course it's not as simple as I'm making it sound because, we're in

Speaker:

the era of antimicrobial resistance.

Speaker:

A lot of times we might not have good or tolerable oral options to suppress

Speaker:

these patients after the treatment.

Speaker:

We don't know how long to suppress them for.

Speaker:

We don't have very good longitudinal studies to tell

Speaker:

us or answer this question.

Speaker:

Dan had talked about one study which had 48 patients where they suppressed.

Speaker:

And you know, in that study, they had about 18% relapse.

Speaker:

So we also don't, I mean, we don't have much studies to tell us about relapse,

Speaker:

how long to keep the patient antibiotic, what happens when we stop the antibiotics,

Speaker:

how much of those patients tolerate the antibiotics and things like that.

Speaker:

So it is really, uh, not an easy thing to, to, to manage, I would say

Speaker:

as long as the device is retained.

Speaker:

You wanna try to keep this patient on antimicrobial

Speaker:

suppression as much as possible.

Speaker:

So, you know, in my mind what I would do is I would finish the

Speaker:

treatment course again, four to six weeks, depending on the syndrome.

Speaker:

See the patient at that point, make sure that the pocket looks good, make

Speaker:

sure that the patient looks good, and then have a discussion with the

Speaker:

patient about getting them on an oral antibiotic that will potentially help

Speaker:

suppress their infection as long as possible, as long as they tolerate it.

Speaker:

Usually it's not an easy discussion, especially when you're trying to

Speaker:

tell the patient that you're likely going to need to be on antibiotics

Speaker:

for the rest of your life.

Speaker:

And so a lot of patients, they might not be very excited about that, so it's

Speaker:

very important to mention this plan, even early on during their treatment,

Speaker:

don't wait until they're done with their treatment and say, hey, we're

Speaker:

gonna put you on oral antibiotics now to suppress you indefinitely.

Speaker:

I think this is something that you have to discuss during the shared

Speaker:

decision making, which Dan talked about, and this should be early during

Speaker:

the hospitalization course itself.

Speaker:

So you guys covered a real, quite a big topic in a pretty short amount of time.

Speaker:

To end, I was just going to ask you separate from this case, what things

Speaker:

you're most excited about in this subset of ID, cardiac device infections.

Speaker:

What things are you most interested in learning about?

Speaker:

Um, maybe studies that are underway that you're looking

Speaker:

forward to hearing results on.

Speaker:

I think we all can share this answer.

Speaker:

For me is that I, I wanna see, um, more accurate diagnosis in this

Speaker:

field because as Hassam mentioned, even though we have TEE, PET-CT.

Speaker:

We still in a lot of, um, conundrum whether this device is infected

Speaker:

or not, whether we should extract it or not, because everything

Speaker:

that we offer to the patient is impact their life substantially.

Speaker:

For example, if we say that, Hey, we are unsure, but we should remove your device.

Speaker:

It's not just easy as we say, because that would involve multiple people.

Speaker:

So that's why I'm excited to see whether, is there any new tools,

Speaker:

any new modality that coming out and regarding the treatment perspective.

Speaker:

We don't have a lot of thing in, in the pipeline right now, but I would

Speaker:

like to see if, is there any way that we can treat the device infection

Speaker:

without a chronic suppression or suppression in very limited time.

Speaker:

The thing that I excited for.

Speaker:

Especially with like using biofilm active agents in those treatments,

Speaker:

is there any role for rifampin?

Speaker:

Does quinolone have a different efficacy than other antibiotics?

Speaker:

'cause we know that it has biofilm activity, so, you know, what is

Speaker:

the role of adding those types of agents to the treatment and does it

Speaker:

really help us get the patient off suppression if we retain the device?

Speaker:

So that's one thing I would like, like to look at.

Speaker:

It would be really nice if there is something that could be done about the

Speaker:

device itself to make it more resistant to, to, to infections in the first place.

Speaker:

And I, I know there has been other things that have, that have been looked at in

Speaker:

the past, like this antibiotic envelope.

Speaker:

Dan, you spoke to us multiple times about this in the past, and so, you

Speaker:

know, what are advances that are being, are happening in the field to

Speaker:

somehow make this device resistant to getting those bacteria seeding on it?

Speaker:

Yeah, I think that's definitely the future.

Speaker:

We're seeing some of it already with leadless pacemakers.

Speaker:

I think that's, that's really the, the future for this.

Speaker:

I mean, it's, we're putting leadless pacemakers in patients, uh, you

Speaker:

know, over the last several years.

Speaker:

Uh, the issue is you can't do a leadless in everybody based on, you

Speaker:

know, does it need atrial sensing?

Speaker:

And certain people rely on on that.

Speaker:

It gets beyond, uh, the, the infectious disease doc in me.

Speaker:

It goes more towards the electrophysiologist to comment on

Speaker:

that, but I know they're working on developing those leadless pacemakers to,

Speaker:

to kind of be the go-to for patients.

Speaker:

Uh, it's very easy to take out as compared to a device that has

Speaker:

been in the chest pocket for 10 years, so there's benefits there.

Speaker:

The material itself is different compared to the current, uh,

Speaker:

uh, CIEDs, like pacemaker ICDs.

Speaker:

So the, these organisms, like the staphylococci, like that,

Speaker:

what they have on their surface and what they like to stick to.

Speaker:

It's less likely to be sticky to the leadless pacemakers.

Speaker:

So it doesn't mean leadless pacemakers don't get infected.

Speaker:

They do, um, just much less likely plus the size and surface area.

Speaker:

So if you have like a big bulky CRT with three leads, compare that to something

Speaker:

that's maybe the size of a little bigger than a reasonable size pill of Augmentin.

Speaker:

You know, there's only so much surface area for that organism

Speaker:

to attach compared to multiple leads and a big pocket generator.

Speaker:

And you think of your patients, a lot of these patients are

Speaker:

gonna be elderly, frail.

Speaker:

There's only so much skin soft tissue to, uh, that pocket.

Speaker:

This is endovascular.

Speaker:

Uh, so, so I think that's, that is definitely the future is going leadless.

Speaker:

There's also subcutaneous where you can go outside of the bloodstream, and go subq

Speaker:

and tunnel these leads, and have external leads, rather than be in the bloodstream.

Speaker:

And I think that's a big factor here.

Speaker:

So I know Hussam you mentioned about, uh, deep brain stimulators,

Speaker:

you know, and again, that, and their management is a little bit different

Speaker:

than complete device extraction.

Speaker:

Sometimes it's just taking out the generator and the lead leads

Speaker:

in, or, there's a lot of ways to go about it, but it's different.

Speaker:

And sometimes suppression works really well.

Speaker:

It's, it's these devices that are intravascular, they're in the bloodstream.

Speaker:

Those are tough to suppress compared to say a prosthetic joint, deep

Speaker:

brain stimulator where its not endovascular, in that bloodstream.

Speaker:

So I'm excited for the future in that regard.

Speaker:

And then probably PET imaging, but rather than using FDG, looking at more

Speaker:

like organism specific to where, Hey, I know there's staph aureus in the blood.

Speaker:

Let's do a staph aureus specific biomarker tracer, uh, that

Speaker:

we can, we can search for.

Speaker:

Maybe that'll give us better uptake than just FDG avidity because

Speaker:

those device leads are, are only gonna have so much surface area.

Speaker:

They're only so much uptake and as you get further away from pocket,

Speaker:

that sensitivity of PET goes down.

Speaker:

So I think that's my big thing, our available tools to make the

Speaker:

diagnosis of device infections.

Speaker:

Echo and, and PET scan are not great.

Speaker:

So I said a lot there.

Speaker:

But I'm excited for the future and I think leadless is the way to go.

Speaker:

For this paper, we collaborated with multiple subspecialties, cardiology,

Speaker:

electrophysiology, nuclear medicine expert, and also CV surgery.

Speaker:

So, the co-author who wrote the paper also reflects like the real life that when we

Speaker:

manage a CIED infection, as Dan mentioned earlier, we need the whole village.

Speaker:

We need to talk to patient, we need to talk to family, and we need to talk

Speaker:

to multiple, multiple people in order to make a decision for one patient.

Speaker:

Thank you so much, Hussam Mac and Dan for joining Febrile today.

Speaker:

You can find their article, State of the Art Review, complexities in

Speaker:

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections, A Contemporary Practical

Speaker:

Approach in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Speaker:

This is linked on the webpage as well as in the episode information.

Speaker:

You can check out their prior StAR episode on vascular graft

Speaker:

infections, episode number 110.

Speaker:

If you're looking to hear another episode related to cardiac device infection,

Speaker:

diagnosis, and management, you can check out episode number 78 featuring some of

Speaker:

our both ID and cardiology colleagues.

Speaker:

Don't forget to check out the website, Febrile podcast.com to find the consult

Speaker:

notes, which are written supplements to the episodes with links to references,

Speaker:

our library of ID infographics, and a link to our merch store.

Speaker:

Febrile is produced with support from the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Speaker:

IDSA.

Speaker:

Please reach out if you have any suggestions for future shows or

Speaker:

wanna be more involved with Febrile.

Speaker:

Thanks for listening.

Speaker:

Stay safe and I'll see you next time.

About the Podcast

Show artwork for Febrile
Febrile
A Cultured Podcast