Journal Article

Risk Factor Analysis of Permanent Pacemaker Infection

Muhammad R. Sohail, Daniel Z. Uslan, Akbar H. Khan, Paul A. Friedman, David L. Hayes, Walter R. Wilson, James M. Steckelberg, Sarah M. Stoner and Larry M. Baddour

in Clinical Infectious Diseases

Published on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America

Volume 45, issue 2, pages 166-173
Published in print July 2007 | ISSN: 1058-4838
Published online July 2007 | e-ISSN: 1537-6591 | DOI:
Risk Factor Analysis of Permanent Pacemaker Infection

More Like This

Show all results sharing these subjects:

  • Infectious Diseases
  • Immunology
  • Public Health and Epidemiology
  • Microbiology


Show Summary Details


Background. Several host- and procedure-related factors have been reported to increase the risk of permanent pacemaker (PPM) infection on the basis of descriptive analyses of case series. The purpose of this study is to assess the risk factors for PPM infection using case-control study methods.

Methods. All patients who had a PPM implanted at our institution from January 1991 to December 2003 were retrospectively reviewed. Each patient who experienced a PPM infection was matched with 2 control subjects by age, sex, year of implantation, and duration of follow-up. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify significant risk factors for PPM infection.

Results. Twenty-nine case patients and 58 control subjects met inclusion criteria. The majority (83%) of case patients presented with a pocket infection; a minority (10%) had PPM-related endocarditis. Staphylococcus species (69%) were the most common pathogens. On univariate analysis, previous PPM infection, malignancy, long-term corticosteroid use, multiple device revisions, a permanent central venous catheter, the presence of <2 pacing leads, and a lack of antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of PPM placement were associated with an increased risk of PPM infection. A multivariable logistic regression model identified long-term corticosteroid use (odds ratio [OR], 13.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27–151.7; P = .03) and the presence of <2 pacing leads versus 2 leads (OR, 5.41; 95% CI, 1.44–20.29; P = .01) as independent risk factors for PPM infection. In contrast, use of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to PPM implantation had a protective effect (OR, 0.087; 95% CI, 0.016–0.48; P = .005).

Conclusions. These findings should assist clinicians in identifying patients who are at increased risk of PPM infection, as well as in developing strategies to minimize the modifiable risks.

Journal Article.  3966 words.  Illustrated.

Subjects: Infectious Diseases ; Immunology ; Public Health and Epidemiology ; Microbiology

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.