Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 493

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic device infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Polyzos, Konstantinos A., Konstantelias, Athanasios A., Falagas, Matthew E.·2015·EP Europace

Abstract

Infectious complications after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation are increasing over time and are associated with substantial mortality and healthcare costs. The aim of this study was to systematically summarize the literature on risk factors for infection after pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation. Electronic searches (up to January 2014) were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Sixty studies (21 prospective, 9 case-control, and 30 retrospective cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria. The average device infection rate was 1-1.3%. In the meta-analysis, significant host-related risk factors for infection included diabetes mellitus (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval] = 2.08 [1.62-2.67]), end-stage renal disease (OR = 8.73 [3.42-22.31]), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 2.95 [1.78-4.90]), corticosteroid use (OR = 3.44 [1.62-7.32]), history of the previous device infection (OR = 7.84 [1.94-31.60]), renal insufficiency (OR = 3.02 [1.38-6.64]), malignancy (OR = 2.23 [1.26-3.95]), heart failure (OR = 1.65 [1.14-2.39]), pre-procedural fever (OR = 4.27 [1.13-16.12]), anticoagulant drug use (OR = 1.59 [1.01-2.48]), and skin disorders (OR = 2.46 [1.04-5.80]). Regarding procedure-related factors, post-operative haematoma (OR = 8.46 [4.01-17.86]), reintervention for lead dislodgement (OR = 6.37 [2.93-13.82]), device replacement/revision (OR = 1.98 [1.46-2.70]), lack of antibiotic prophylaxis (OR = 0.32 [0.18-0.55]), temporary pacing (OR = 2.31 [1.36-3.92]), inexperienced operator (OR = 2.85 [1.23-6.58]), and procedure duration (weighted mean difference = 9.89 [0.52-19.25]) were all predictors of CIED infection. Among device-related characteristics, abdominal pocket (OR = 4.01 [2.48-6.49]), epicardial leads (OR = 8.09 [3.46-18.92]), positioning of two or more leads (OR = 2.02 [1.11-3.69]), and dual-chamber systems (OR = 1.45 [1.02-2.05]) predisposed to device infection. This systematic review on risk factors for CIED infection may contribute to developing better infection control strategies for high-risk patients and can also help risk assessment in the management of device revisions.

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 · 10.1093/europace/euv053

Cites

72 of 72 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 72 references

Cited by

See all 493

Metadata

Authors
Polyzos, K. A., Konstantelias, A. A., & Falagas, M. E.
Venue
EP Europace
Published
2015-04-29
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
767-777
ISSN
  • 1099-5129 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2092
OpenAlex
W2153172728
Cited by
493
References
72
FWCI
6.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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 factors for cardiac implantable electronic device infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/europace/euv053
The paper
Polyzos, K. A., Konstantelias, A. A., & Falagas, M. E. (2015). Risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic device infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EP Europace. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euv053

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.