The BLISTER Score: A Novel, Externally Validated Tool for Predicting Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections, and Its Cost-Utility Implications for Antimicrobial Envelope Use

Abstract

Background: Antimicrobial envelopes reduce the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infections, but their cost restricts routine use in the United Kingdom. Risk scoring could help to identify which patients would most benefit from this technology.

Methods: A novel risk score (BLISTER [Blood results, Long procedure time, Immunosuppressed, Sixty years old (or younger), Type of procedure, Early re-intervention, Repeat procedure]) was derived from multivariate analysis of factors associated with cardiac implantable electronic device infection. Diagnostic utility was assessed against the existing PADIT score (Prior procedure, Age, Depressed renal function, Immunocompromised, Type of procedure) in both standard and high-risk external validation cohorts, and cost-utility models examined different BLISTER and PADIT score thresholds for TYRX (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN) antimicrobial envelope allocation.

Results: In a derivation cohort (n=7383), cardiac implantable electronic device infection occurred in 59 individuals within 12 months of a procedure (event rate, 0.8%). In addition to the PADIT score constituents, lead extraction (hazard ratio, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.9-6.1]; P<0.0001), C-reactive protein >50 mg/L (hazard ratio, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.4-6.4]; P=0.005), reintervention within 2 years (hazard ratio, 10.1 [95% CI, 5.6-17.9]; P<0.0001), and top-quartile procedure duration (hazard ratio, 2.6 [95% CI, 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=2854, event rate: 0.8%, area under the curve, 0.82 versus 0.71; P=0.001) and high-risk validation cohorts (n=1961, event rate: 2.0%, area under the curve, 0.77 versus 0.69; P=0.001), and in all patients (n=12 198, event rate: 1%, area under the curve, 0.8 versus 0.75, P=0.002). In decision-analytic modeling, the optimum scenario assigned antimicrobial envelopes to patients with BLISTER scores ≥6 (10.8%), delivering a significant reduction in infections (relative risk reduction, 30%; P=0.036) within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-utility thresholds (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £18 446).

Conclusions: The BLISTER score (https://qxmd.com/calculate/calculator_876/the-blister-score-for-cied-infection) was a valid predictor of cardiac implantable electronic device infection, and could facilitate cost-effective antimicrobial envelope allocation to high-risk patients.

Keywords: cardiac resynchronization therapy; defibrillators; heart failure; infections; quality of life; risk factors.

Figure 1.

Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the PADIT and BLISTER scores in diagnosing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection at 12 months. A, Standard-risk validation cohort. B, High-risk validation cohort. C, All patients from both validation cohorts and the derivation cohort.

Figure 2.

Trade-off plot demonstrating cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained vs relative reduction in cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections (%) for the whole cohort, with TYRX antimicrobial envelopes allocated according to different BLISTER and PADIT score thresholds.

Figure 3.

Cumulative event plots for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection according to high or low PADIT and BLISTER scores [Blood results, Long procedure time, Immunosuppressed, Sixty years old (or younger), Type of procedure, Early re-intervention, Repeat procedure]. Panel A: impact of high (≥6) or low (<6) PADIT score. Panel B: impact of high (≥6) or low (<6) BLISTER score. Cumulative event plots for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection according to high or low PADIT (A) and BLISTER scores (B).