Delphi consensus recommendations for preventing and treating cardiac implantable electronic device infections beyond current guidelines

Infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) pose significant clinical challenges due to their life-threatening nature and complex management. Recent advancements in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment have been driven by landmark trials such as PADIT and WRAP-IT, alongside evolving diagnostic tools like [18 F]FDG PET/CT and updated diagnostic criteria (e.g., 2023 Duke-ISCVID). A combination of well-established approaches—such as leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous ICDs, and an antibiotic-eluting envelope—and evolving adjunctive strategies, including a taurolidine-containing antimicrobial agent, incision drapes, fascial plane blocks or double gloving, have broadened the spectrum of options to reduce and potentially mitigate the risk of CIED infection. While devices like leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous ICDs, and antibiotic envelopes are supported by randomized controlled trials, adjunctive measures such as taurolidine rely predominantly on observational data. To address this variation in the strength of available evidence, a modified Delphi consensus process was conducted, bringing together cardiologists and infectious disease experts to define experience-based best practices in areas where current guidelines offer limited or no specific recommendations. The consensus achieved strong agreement (≥ 80%) on key strategies, including mandatory double-gloving to reduce contamination, the use of validated risk models (e.g., PADIT, BLISTER) for tailored infection prevention employing an antibiotic eluting envelope, multidisciplinary decision-making for non-extractable infections and the use of taurolidine solutions as adjuncts to prevent CIED infection. Moderate consensus (60–79%) supported non-delayed reimplantation after lead-related endocarditis and single-session reimplantation in pacing-dependent patients under specific circumstances. However, no consensus was reached on mandating a minimum annual procedural volume (≥ 500 cases) for CIED centers, reflecting concerns about access and operator expertise. The findings emphasize the importance of personalized risk stratification, procedural innovations, and multidisciplinary collaboration in optimizing CIED infection outcomes. Areas requiring further research include the efficacy of iodophor-impregnated drapes, fascial plane blocks, and taurolidine solutions. This consensus provides a pragmatic framework for clinicians, highlighting evidence-informed strategies to mitigate infection risks and improve care for patients undergoing CIED procedures.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2026-04-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-49515-x
Primary Topic
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Delphi consensus recommendations for preventing and treating cardiac implantable electronic device infections beyond current guidelines

Benito Baldauf, Alexander Steger, Giuseppe Arena, Giulio Zucchelli et al.
Scientific Reports
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
article

Delphi consensus recommendations for preventing and treating cardiac implantable electronic device infections beyond current guidelines

Benito Baldauf, Alexander Steger, Giuseppe Arena, Giulio Zucchelli, Valerio Zacà, Sebastian Spencker, Veronica Dusi, Roberto Cemin, Ojan Assadian, Marzia Giaccardi, Antonio Rapacciuolo, Felix Hohendanner, Ernesto Casorelli, Kerstin Bode, Gianfranco Mitacchione, Pan A, E Durante Mangoni, M Biffi, Paul William Xavier Foley, Archana Rao, Hendrik Bonnemeier, Federico Migliore, Carlo Tascini, Maria Grazia Bongiorni
article en

Abstract

Infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) pose significant clinical challenges due to their life-threatening nature and complex management. Recent advancements in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment have been driven by landmark trials such as PADIT and WRAP-IT, alongside evolving diagnostic tools like [18 F]FDG PET/CT and updated diagnostic criteria (e.g., 2023 Duke-ISCVID). A combination of well-established approaches—such as leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous ICDs, and an antibiotic-eluting envelope—and evolving adjunctive strategies, including a taurolidine-containing antimicrobial agent, incision drapes, fascial plane blocks or double gloving, have broadened the spectrum of options to reduce and potentially mitigate the risk of CIED infection. While devices like leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous ICDs, and antibiotic envelopes are supported by randomized controlled trials, adjunctive measures such as taurolidine rely predominantly on observational data. To address this variation in the strength of available evidence, a modified Delphi consensus process was conducted, bringing together cardiologists and infectious disease experts to define experience-based best practices in areas where current guidelines offer limited or no specific recommendations. The consensus achieved strong agreement (≥ 80%) on key strategies, including mandatory double-gloving to reduce contamination, the use of validated risk models (e.g., PADIT, BLISTER) for tailored infection prevention employing an antibiotic eluting envelope, multidisciplinary decision-making for non-extractable infections and the use of taurolidine solutions as adjuncts to prevent CIED infection. Moderate consensus (60–79%) supported non-delayed reimplantation after lead-related endocarditis and single-session reimplantation in pacing-dependent patients under specific circumstances. However, no consensus was reached on mandating a minimum annual procedural volume (≥ 500 cases) for CIED centers, reflecting concerns about access and operator expertise. The findings emphasize the importance of personalized risk stratification, procedural innovations, and multidisciplinary collaboration in optimizing CIED infection outcomes. Areas requiring further research include the efficacy of iodophor-impregnated drapes, fascial plane blocks, and taurolidine solutions. This consensus provides a pragmatic framework for clinicians, highlighting evidence-informed strategies to mitigate infection risks and improve care for patients undergoing CIED procedures.

Scientific ReportsVol. 16(1)
University of Siena (IT), University of Udine (IT), University of Huddersfield (GB), University of Padua (IT), University of Liverpool (GB), Great Western Hospital (GB), Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE), Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt (AT), Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital (GB), Ospedale di Bolzano (IT), Hochschule Bremerhaven (DE), IRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola (IT), Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia (IT), Deutsches Herzzentrum der Charité (DE), Meyer Children's Hospital (IT), Ospedale Santa Maria Annunziata (IT), Ospedale Santa Maria (IT), Asklepios Kliniken Schildautal (DE), Leipzig Heart Institute (DE), Federico II University Hospital (IT), Ospedale Santa Maria della Misericordia di Udine (IT), Azienda Ospedale - Università Padova (IT), Ospedale di Prato Santo Stefano (IT), Berlin Heart (Germany) (DE), Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana (IT), Istituti Ospitalieri di Cremona (IT), Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale di Cremona, University of Turin (IT), Technical University of Munich (DE), Misericordia University (US), University of Naples Federico II (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.