Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk Factor Analysis of Permanent Pacemaker Infection

Sohail, M. R., Uslan, D. Z., Khan, A. H., Friedman, P. A., Hayes, D. L., Wilson, W. R., Steckelberg, J. M., Stoner, S. M., Baddour, L. M.·2007·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/518889

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 288

Metadata

Authors
Sohail, M. R., Uslan, D. Z., Khan, A. H., Friedman, P. A., Hayes, D. L., Wilson, W. R., Steckelberg, J. M., Stoner, S. M., & Baddour, L. M.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2007-07-15
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
166-173
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2150457138
Cited by
288
References
18
FWCI
8.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk Factor Analysis of Permanent Pacemaker Infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/518889
The paper
Sohail, M. R., Uslan, D. Z., Khan, A. H., Friedman, P. A., Hayes, D. L., Wilson, W. R., Steckelberg, J. M., Stoner, S. M., & Baddour, L. M. (2007). Risk Factor Analysis of Permanent Pacemaker Infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/518889

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.