The Blister Score: A Novel, Externally Validated Tool for Predicting Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections, and Its Cost-utility Implications for Antimicrobial Envelope Use.
Edd MacleanKarishma MahtaniShohreh HonarbakhshCharles Jt ButcherNikhil AhluwaliaAdam S C DennisAntonio CretaMalcolm FinlayMark ElliottVishal Shahil MehtaNadeev WijesuriyaOmar ShaikhYom ZawChizute OgbedehVasu GautamPier D LambiaseRichard J SchillingMark J EarleyPhilip MooreAmal MuthumalaSimon E C SportonRoss J HunterChristopher A RinaldiJonathan M BeharClaire A MartinChristopher MonkhouseAnthony Wc ChowPublished in: Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology (2024)
Background: Antimicrobial envelopes reduce the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections, but their cost restricts routine use in the UK. Risk scoring could help identify which patients would most benefit from this technology. Methods: A novel risk score (BLISTER) was derived from multivariate analysis of factors associated with CIED infection. Diagnostic utility was assessed against the existing PADIT score in both standard and high-risk external validation cohorts, and cost-utility models examined different BLISTER and PADIT score thresholds for TYRX TM antimicrobial envelope (AE) allocation. Results: In a derivation cohort (n=7,383), CIED infection occurred in 59 individuals within 12 months of a procedure (event rate: 0.8%). In addition to the PADIT score constituents, lead extraction (HR 3.3 (1.9-6.1), p<0.0001), C-reactive protein >50mg/l (HR 3.0 (1.4-6.4), p=0.005), re-intervention within two years (HR 10.1 (5.6-17.9), p<0.0001), and top-quartile procedure duration (HR 2.6 (1.6-4.1), p=0.001) were independent predictors of infection. The BLISTER score demonstrated superior discriminative performance versus PADIT in the standard-risk (n=2,854, event rate: 0.8%, AUC 0.82 vs 0.71, p=0.001) and high-risk validation cohorts (n=1,961, event rate: 2.0%, AUC 0.77 vs 0.69, p=0.001), and in all patients (n=12,198, event rate: 1%, AUC 0.8 vs 0.75, p=0.002). In decision-analytic modelling, the optimum scenario assigned AEs to patients with BLISTER scores ≥ 6 (10.8%), delivering a significant reduction in infections (relative risk reduction: 30%, p=0.036) within the NICE cost-utility thresholds (ICER: ￡18,446). Conclusions: The BLISTER score (https://qxmd.com/calculate/calculator_876/the-blister-score-for-cied-infection) was a valid predictor of CIED infection, and could facilitate cost-effective AE allocation to high-risk patients.