Adherent skin barrier drape use is associated with a reduced risk of cardiac implantable device infection: Results from a prospective study of 14,225 procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundCardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a costly and highly morbid complication. Peri-operative interventions, including the use of antibiotic pouches and intensified peri-operative antibiotic regimens, have demonstrated marginal efficacy at reducing CIED infection. Additional research is needed to identify additional interventions to reduce infection risk.ObjectiveWe sought to evaluate whether adherent skin barrier drape use is associated with a reduction in CIED infection.MethodsA prospective registry of all CIED implant procedures was started at our institution in January 2007. The registry was initiated in collaboration with our hospital infection prevention team with a specific focus on prospectively identifying all potential CIED infections. All potential CIED infections were independently adjudicated by two physicians blinded to the use of adherent skin barrier drape.ResultsOver a 13-year period 14,225 procedures were completed (mean age 72 ± 14 years, female 35%, new implants 70%, pulse generator changes 18%, and upgrades 11%). Of these, 2,469 procedures (17.4%) were performed using an adherent skin barrier drape. There were 103 adjudicated device infections (0.73%). The infection rate in patients in the barrier use groups was 8/2469 (0.32%) compared to 95/11,756 (0.8%) in the non-use group (p=0.0084). In multivariable analysis use of adherent skin barrier drape was independently associated with a reduction in infection (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.154-0.665, p=0.002).ConclusionUse of an adherent skin barrier drape at the time of cardiac device surgery is associated with a lower risk of subsequent infection.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".