Cardiovascular implantable electrophysiological device-related infections: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of cardiac implantable electrophysiological device (CIED) therapy in the management of cardiac disease is increasing with the improvements in technology of permanent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Accordingly CIED-related infections are increasing and have become an important clinical problem. The purpose of this review is to summarize current literature on the epidemiology, risk factors, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of CIED-related infections. RECENT FINDINGS: The diagnosis and management of CIED-related infections can be difficult. Recent research would suggest extraction of all CIED components, and concomitant appropriate antibiotic therapy is the principal management modality of CIED component and pocket infection. The exact duration of antibiotic therapy and timing of re-implantation still require further delineation in the absence of comparative evidence; however, improvements in technologies such as the excimer laser have enabled percutaneous extraction to be performed effectively and safely in the vast majority of patients. Differentiating CIED-related infection from noninfected mechanical issues that may not require extraction or antibiotics can be very difficult. Research is continuing into better methods to diagnose and treat infection. SUMMARY: CIED-related infections are an important clinical problem with ongoing research to improve diagnosis and treatment. Currently, percutaneous CIED extraction and antibiotic therapy are the mainstay of treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".