Outcomes of complete removal versus conservative therapy in cardiac implantable electronic device infections – A systematic review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complete removal of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is recommended in patients with CIED infections, including both systemic and localized pocket infection. The aim of the study was to provide an up-to-date and comprehensive assessment of evidence relating to the effect of complete CIED extraction in patients with a CIED infection. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting short- and mid-term outcomes in patients who had a device infection or infective endocarditis (IE) and underwent complete removal of the cardiac device (generator and leads) compared to those who received conservative therapy (no removal, partial removal, local antibiotic infiltration or isolated antibiotic therapy). The primary outcome was reinfection/relapse. Secondary outcomes were short-term (30-day/in-hospital) and mid-term (mean follow-up: 43.0 months) mortality. Random effects model was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies met the criteria for inclusion in the final analysis. Patients with complete CIED extraction (n = 905) exhibited a lower rate of relapse/re-infection compared to patients (n = 195) with a conservative treatment approach (n = 195, OR 0.02, 95%CI 0.01-0.06, p < 0.0001, mean-follow-up: 16.1 months). Additionally, these patients displayed a lower short- (OR 0.40, 95%CI 0.23-0.69, p = 0.01) and mid-term (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.34-0.78, p = 0.002) mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis indicates that patients with a CIED infection who undergo complete CIED extraction exhibit a lower rate of relapse/re-infection. Additionally, a lower short- and mid-term mortality is observed, although it is acknowledged that this outcome may be influenced by treatment allocation bias.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".