The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia in Patients With Permanent Pacemakers or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators
Open accessAbstract
Background Although cardiac device infections (CDIs) are a devastating complication of permanent pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, the incidence of CDI in patients with bacteremia is not well defined. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of CDI among patients with permanent pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators who develop Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB). Methods and Results A cohort of all adult patients with SAB and permanent pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators over a 6-year period was evaluated prospectively. The overall incidence of confirmed CDI was 15 of 33 (45.4%). Confirmed CDI occurred in 9 of the 12 patients (75%) with early SAB (<1 year after device placement). Fifteen of 21 patients (71.5%) with late SAB (≥1 year after device placement) had either confirmed (6 of 21, 28.5%) or possible (9 of 21, 43%) CDI. In 60% of the patients (9 of 15) with confirmed CDI, no local signs or symptoms suggesting generator pocket infection were noted. Conclusions The incidence of CDI among patients with SAB and cardiac devices is high. Neither physical examination nor echocardiography can exclude the possibility of CDI. In patients with early SAB, the device is usually involved, and ≈40% of these patients have obvious clinical signs of cardiac device involvement. Conversely, in patients with late SAB, the cardiac device is rarely the initial source of bacteremia, and there is a paucity of local signs of device involvement. The cardiac device is involved, however, in ≥28% of these patients.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Staphylococcus aureus Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis: Optimal Management and Risk Factors for Death
John, M. D. V., Hibberd, P. L., Karchmer, A. W., Sleeper, L. A., & Calderwood, S. B. (1998) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/516378 · Cited by 153
Cited by
Tong, S. Y. C., Davis, J. S., Eichenberger, E., Holland, T. L., & Fowler, V. G. (2015) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00134-14 · Cited by 5,192
Self-citationBaddour, L. M., Epstein, A. E., Erickson, C. C., Knight, B. P., Levison, M. E., Lockhart, P. B., Masoudi, F. A., Okum, E. J., Wilson, W. R., Beerman, L. B., et al. (2010) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.109.192665 · Cited by 1,030
Bioresorbable silicon electronic sensors for the brain
Kang, S.-K., Murphy, R. K. J., Hwang, S.-W., Lee, S. M., Harburg, D. V., Krueger, N. A., Shin, J., Gamble, P., Cheng, H., Yu, S., et al. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature16492 · Cited by 998
Shin, J., Yan, Y., Bai, W., Xue, Y., Gamble, P., Tian, L., Kandela, I., Haney, C. R., Spees, W., Lee, Y., et al. (2018) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-018-0300-4 · Cited by 263
Metadata
- Authors
- Chamis, A. L., Peterson, G. E., Cabell, C. H., Corey, G. R., Sorrentino, R. A., Greenfield, R. A., Ryan, T., Reller, L. B., & Fowler, V. G.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 2001-08-28
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1029-1033
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2033138353
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.52
- 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: Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia in Patients With Permanent Pacemakers or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/hc3401.095097
- The paper
- Chamis, A. L., Peterson, G. E., Cabell, C. H., Corey, G. R., Sorrentino, R. A., Greenfield, R. A., Ryan, T., Reller, L. B., & Fowler, V. G. (2001). Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia in Patients With Permanent Pacemakers or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/hc3401.095097
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.