Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) infections pose significant mortality and morbidity despite optimal treatment. This survey aimed to understand whether and how the risk of CIED infection is assessed and mitigated in clinical practice in Europe, and to detect gaps with respect to EHRA recommendations.
METHODS: An Expert Group of 8 European cardiologists with specific expertise across CIED therapy designed and distributed electronically a survey to a number of European Cardiologists.
RESULTS: 302 physicians from 18 European countries responded to the survey. 288/302 (95%) physicians agreed that CIED-related infections represent a burden on healthcare resources and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. 285/302 respondents (94%) primarily assess the risk of CIED infections by only evaluating the patient\'s clinical profile (137/302, 46%) or with the support of a risk score (148/302, 49%). Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is used by 282/302 (93%), followed by the implantation of the lowest number of leads possible (182/302, 60%), and by the use of an antibacterial envelope (173/302, 57%). 230/302 respondents (76%) declared that there is need for clear and concise guidelines and more sensitive risk-scores for CIED infection, to maximize the chances of preventative strategies.
CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrates a high level of awareness about the multifaceted issue of CIED infection, however, it also highlights an incomplete penetration of scoring systems for risk stratification owing to their perceived limitations, and detects a strong commitment to increase the effectiveness of preventative strategies.
METHODS: An Expert Group of 8 European cardiologists with specific expertise across CIED therapy designed and distributed electronically a survey to a number of European Cardiologists.
RESULTS: 302 physicians from 18 European countries responded to the survey. 288/302 (95%) physicians agreed that CIED-related infections represent a burden on healthcare resources and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. 285/302 respondents (94%) primarily assess the risk of CIED infections by only evaluating the patient\'s clinical profile (137/302, 46%) or with the support of a risk score (148/302, 49%). Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is used by 282/302 (93%), followed by the implantation of the lowest number of leads possible (182/302, 60%), and by the use of an antibacterial envelope (173/302, 57%). 230/302 respondents (76%) declared that there is need for clear and concise guidelines and more sensitive risk-scores for CIED infection, to maximize the chances of preventative strategies.
CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrates a high level of awareness about the multifaceted issue of CIED infection, however, it also highlights an incomplete penetration of scoring systems for risk stratification owing to their perceived limitations, and detects a strong commitment to increase the effectiveness of preventative strategies.
摘要：
目的：心脏植入式电子设备（CIED）感染尽管治疗效果最佳，但仍造成显著的死亡率和发病率。这项调查旨在了解在欧洲临床实践中是否以及如何评估和减轻CIED感染的风险。并发现与EHRA建议的差距。
方法：由8名欧洲心脏病学家组成的专家小组设计了一项调查，并以电子方式向许多欧洲心脏病学家分发。
结果：来自18个欧洲国家的302名医生对调查做出了回应。288/302（95％）的医生认为CIED相关感染是医疗资源的负担，并与显著的发病率和死亡率相关。285/302名受访者（94%）主要通过仅评估患者的临床特征（137/302，46%）或支持风险评分（148/302，49%）来评估CIED感染的风险。282/302（93％）使用静脉抗生素预防，其次是可能的最低数量的引线植入（182/302，60％），并使用抗菌信封（173/302，57％）。230/302受访者（76％）表示需要清晰简洁的指南和更敏感的CIED感染风险评分，最大限度地提高预防策略的机会。
结论：这项调查表明人们对CIED感染的多方面问题有很高的认识，然而,它还强调了风险分层评分系统由于其感知的局限性而不完全渗透，并检测到提高预防策略有效性的坚定承诺。
方法：由8名欧洲心脏病学家组成的专家小组设计了一项调查，并以电子方式向许多欧洲心脏病学家分发。
结果：来自18个欧洲国家的302名医生对调查做出了回应。288/302（95％）的医生认为CIED相关感染是医疗资源的负担，并与显著的发病率和死亡率相关。285/302名受访者（94%）主要通过仅评估患者的临床特征（137/302，46%）或支持风险评分（148/302，49%）来评估CIED感染的风险。282/302（93％）使用静脉抗生素预防，其次是可能的最低数量的引线植入（182/302，60％），并使用抗菌信封（173/302，57％）。230/302受访者（76％）表示需要清晰简洁的指南和更敏感的CIED感染风险评分，最大限度地提高预防策略的机会。
结论：这项调查表明人们对CIED感染的多方面问题有很高的认识，然而,它还强调了风险分层评分系统由于其感知的局限性而不完全渗透，并检测到提高预防策略有效性的坚定承诺。
