The BLISTER Score: A Novel, Externally Validated Tool for Predicting Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections, and Its Cost-Utility Implications for Antimicrobial Envelope Use.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial envelopes reduce the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infections, but their cost restricts routine use in the United Kingdom. Risk scoring could help to identify which patients would most benefit from this technology. METHODS: A novel risk score (BLISTER [Blood results, Long procedure time, Immunosuppressed, Sixty years old (or younger), Type of procedure, Early re-intervention, Repeat procedure]) was derived from multivariate analysis of factors associated with cardiac implantable electronic device infection. Diagnostic utility was assessed against the existing PADIT score (Prior procedure, Age, Depressed renal function, Immunocompromised, Type of procedure) in both standard and high-risk external validation cohorts, and cost-utility models examined different BLISTER and PADIT score thresholds for TYRX (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN) antimicrobial envelope allocation. RESULTS: In a derivation cohort (n=7383), cardiac implantable electronic device infection occurred in 59 individuals within 12 months of a procedure (event rate, 0.8%). In addition to the PADIT score constituents, lead extraction (hazard ratio, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.9-6.1]; P<0.0001), C-reactive protein >50 mg/L (hazard ratio, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.4-6.4]; P=0.005), reintervention within 2 years (hazard ratio, 10.1 [95% CI, 5.6-17.9]; P<0.0001), and top-quartile procedure duration (hazard ratio, 2.6 [95% CI, 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=2854, event rate: 0.8%, area under the curve, 0.82 versus 0.71; P=0.001) and high-risk validation cohorts (n=1961, event rate: 2.0%, area under the curve, 0.77 versus 0.69; P=0.001), and in all patients (n=12 198, event rate: 1%, area under the curve, 0.8 versus 0.75, P=0.002). In decision-analytic modeling, the optimum scenario assigned antimicrobial envelopes to patients with BLISTER scores ≥6 (10.8%), delivering a significant reduction in infections (relative risk reduction, 30%; P=0.036) within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-utility thresholds (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £18 446). CONCLUSIONS: The BLISTER score (https://qxmd.com/calculate/calculator_876/the-blister-score-for-cied-infection) was a valid predictor of cardiac implantable electronic device infection, and could facilitate cost-effective antimicrobial envelope allocation to high-risk patients.

Pericardial Fluid Analysis in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Patients Who Underwent Pericardiocentesis.

In this study, we aimed to examine the diagnostic yield of pericardial fluid biochemistry and cytology and their prognostic significance in patients with percutaneously drained pericardial effusions, with and without malignancy. This is a single-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent pericardiocentesis between 2010 and 2020. Data were extracted from electronic patient records, including procedural information, underlying diagnosis, and laboratory results. Patients were grouped into those with and without underlying malignancy. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the association of variables with mortality. The study included 179 patients; 50% had an underlying malignancy. There were no significant differences in pericardial fluid protein and lactate dehydrogenase between the 2 groups. Diagnostic yield from pericardial fluid analysis was greater in the malignant group (32% vs 11%, p = 0.002); 72% of newly diagnosed malignancies had positive fluid cytology. The 1-year survival was 86% and 33% in nonmalignant and malignant groups, respectively (p <0.001). Of 17 patients who died within the nonmalignant group, idiopathic effusions were the largest group (n = 6). In malignancy, lower pericardial fluid protein and higher serum C-reactive protein were associated with increased risk of mortality. In conclusion, pericardial fluid biochemistry has limited value in determining the etiology of pericardial effusions; fluid cytology is the most important diagnostic test. Mortality in malignant pericardial effusions may be associated with lower pericardial fluid protein levels and a higher serum C-reactive protein. Nonmalignant pericardial effusions do not have a benign prognosis and close follow-up is required.