The Blister Score: A Novel, Externally Validated Tool for Predicting Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections, and Its Cost-utility Implications for Antimicrobial Envelope Use
Edd Maclean Karishma Mahtani Shohreh Honarbakhsh Charles Butcher Nikhil Ahluwalia Adam S.C. Dennis Antonio Creta Malcolm Finlay Mark Elliott Vishal Mehta Nadeev Wijesuriya Omar Shaikh Yom Zaw Chizute Ogbedeh Vasu Gautam Pier D. Lambiase Richard J. Schilling Mark J. Earley Philip Moore Amal Muthumala Simon E.C. Sporton Ross J. Hunter Christopher A. Rinaldi Jonathan Behar Claire Martin Christopher Monkhouse Anthony Chow Barts Heart Centre,St. Bartholomew's Hospital,London,United Kingdom St. Thomas' Hospital,London,United Kingdom Royal Papworth Hospital,Cambridge,United Kingdom
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circep.123.012446
2024-01-24
Circulation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
Abstract:Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, Ahead of Print. Background:Antimicrobial envelopes reduce the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections, but their cost restricts routine use in the UK. Risk scoring could help identify which patients would most benefit from this technology.Methods:A novel risk score (BLISTER) was derived from multivariate analysis of factors associated with CIED infection. Diagnostic utility was assessed against the existing PADIT score in both standard and high-risk external validation cohorts, and cost-utility models examined different BLISTER and PADIT score thresholds for TYRXTMantimicrobial envelope (AE) allocation.Results:In a derivation cohort (n=7,383), CIED infection occurred in 59 individuals within 12 months of a procedure (event rate: 0.8%). In addition to the PADIT score constituents, lead extraction (HR 3.3 (1.9-6.1), p 50mg/l (HR 3.0 (1.4-6.4), p=0.005), re-intervention within two years (HR 10.1 (5.6-17.9), p<0.0001), and top-quartile procedure duration (HR 2.6 (1.6-4.1), p=0.001) were independent predictors of infection. The BLISTER score demonstrated superior discriminative performance versus PADIT in the standard-risk (n=2,854, event rate: 0.8%, AUC 0.82 vs 0.71, p=0.001) and high-risk validation cohorts (n=1,961, event rate: 2.0%, AUC 0.77 vs 0.69, p=0.001), and in all patients (n=12,198, event rate: 1%, AUC 0.8 vs 0.75, p=0.002). In decision-analytic modelling, the optimum scenario assigned AEs to patients with BLISTER scores ≥ 6 (10.8%), delivering a significant reduction in infections (relative risk reduction: 30%, p=0.036) within the NICE cost-utility thresholds (ICER: £18,446).Conclusions:The BLISTER score (https://qxmd.com/calculate/calculator_876/the-blister-score-for-cied-infection) was a valid predictor of CIED infection, and could facilitate cost-effective AE allocation to high-risk patients.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems