MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413758275 · doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2025.2835

Iodinated Adhesive Drapes for Repeat Cardiac Implantable Device Implantation

2025· article· en· W4413758275 on OpenAlexaff
Alper Aydın, Mehrdad Golian, Andrés Ortega Klein, Calum J. Redpath, Darryl R. Davis, F. Daniel Ramirez, Girish M. Nair, Martin S. Green, Mouhannad M. Sadek, Pablo B. Nery, Simon P. Hansom, Ghalib Al Hinai, Willy Weng, Nicolas M. Berbenetz, Michael J. Thibert, Yasmeen Salmeen, Evan Martow, Li Wei Tan, Ghaith Almidani, Abdullah Alshehri, Anas Alzahrani, Fahad Abdullah Alharbi, Vicente Corrales‐Medina, George A. Wells, David H. Birnie

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: One potential pathophysiological mechanism for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections is pocket contamination during the implantation procedure. Preventing contamination at this stage may significantly reduce the risk of infections. Objective: To determine whether the application of an intraoperative adhesive iodine-impregnated drape would reduce the rate of end-of-procedure pocket-swab positivity and subsequent CIED infections. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prospective, double-armed, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial, conducted from November 2020 to May 2024. Patients, the staff performing the swabs, and the microbiologists were blinded to group assignments. This was a single-center study that included patients undergoing repeat procedures on the same device pocket. These patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the iodine-impregnated drape group or the control group. Intervention: Application of an iodine-impregnated drape at the beginning of the procedure. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was end-of-procedure pocket-swab culture positivity. Results: A total of 418 patients were randomized (210 to the drape group and 208 to the no-drape group). The final analysis included 189 patients in the drape group and 195 patients in the no-drape group, with both groups well balanced in demographics. In the drape group, 143 participants were male (75.7%), and mean (SD) age was 73.9 (12.1) years; in the no-drape group, 140 were male (71.8%), and mean (SD) age was 73.2 (12.6) years. Pocket-swab culture positivity was found in 19 of 189 patients (10.1%) in the drape group compared with 40 of 195 patients (20.5%) in the no-drape group (relative risk reduction [RRR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.24-0.75; P = .005). Adjudicated CIED infections occurred in 4 of 195 patients (1.9%) in the no-drape group vs 0 of 189 in the drape group (P = .02). CIED infections were observed in 2 of 59 patients (3.4%) with positive swabs and in 2 of 325 patients (0.6%) with negative swabs (odds ratio, 5.67; 95% CI, 0.78-41.04; P = .08). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the use of iodine-impregnated drapes during repeat CIED implantation resulted in reduction in swab culture positivity and 1-year CIED infection rates. This is a simple and cost-effective intervention to reduce CIED pocket contamination and subsequent infections. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04591366.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA CardiologySame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207