An Automated Surveillance Strategy to Identify Infectious Complications After Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Procedures.

Background.  The optimum approach for infectious complication surveillance for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures is unclear. We created an automated surveillance tool for infectious complications after CIED procedures. Methods.  Adults having CIED procedures between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2011 at Duke University Hospital were identified retrospectively using International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision (ICD-9) procedure codes. Potential infections were identified with combinations of ICD-9 diagnosis codes and microbiology data for 365 days postprocedure. All microbiology-identified and a subset of ICD-9 code-identified possible cases, as well as a subset of procedures without microbiology or ICD-9 codes, were reviewed. Test performance characteristics for specific queries were calculated. Results.  Overall, 6097 patients had 7137 procedures. Of these, 1686 procedures with potential infectious complications were identified: 174 by both ICD-9 code and microbiology, 14 only by microbiology, and 1498 only by ICD-9 criteria. We reviewed 558 potential cases, including all 188 microbiology-identified cases, 250 randomly selected ICD-9 cases, and 120 with neither. Overall, 65 unique infections were identified, including 5 of 250 reviewed cases identified only by ICD-9 codes. Queries that included microbiology data and ICD-9 code 996.61 had good overall test performance, with sensitivities of approximately 90% and specificities of approximately 80%. Queries with ICD-9 codes alone had poor specificity. Extrapolation of reviewed infectious rates to nonreviewed cases yields an estimated rate of infection of 1.3%. Conclusions.  Electronic queries with combinations of ICD-9 codes and microbiologic data can be created and have good test performance characteristics for identifying likely infectious complications of CIED procedures.

A prospective comparison of a noninvasive cardiac output monitor versus esophageal doppler monitor for goal-directed fluid therapy in colorectal surgery patients

Copyright © 2014 International Anesthesia Research Society.BACKGROUND: Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) is associated with improved outcomes after surgery. The esophageal Doppler monitor (EDM) is widely used, but has several limitations. The NICOM, a completely noninvasive cardiac output monitor (Cheetah Medical), may be appropriate for guiding GDFT. No prospective studies have compared the NICOM and the EDM. We hypothesized that the NICOM is not significantly different from the EDM for monitoring during GDFT. METHODS: One hundred adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery participated in this study. Patients in phase I (n = 50) had intraoperative GDFT guided by the EDM while the NICOM was connected, and patients in phase II (n = 50) had intraoperative GDFT guided by the NICOM while the EDM was connected. Each patient's stroke volume was optimized using 250- mL colloid boluses. Agreement between the monitors was assessed, and patient outcomes (postoperative pain, nausea, and return of bowel function), complications (renal, pulmonary, infectious, and wound complications), and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared. RESULTS: Using a 10% increase in stroke volume after fluid challenge, agreement between monitors was 60% at 5 minutes, 61% at 10 minutes, and 66% at 15 minutes, with no significant systematic disagreement (McNemar P > 0.05) at any time point. The EDM had significantly more missing data than the NICOM. No clinically significant differences were found in total LOS or other outcomes. The mean LOS was 6.56 ± 4.32 days in phase I and 6.07 ± 2.85 days in phase II, and 95% confidence limits for the difference were -0.96 to +1.95 days (P = 0.5016). CONCLUSIONS: The NICOM performs similarly to the EDM in guiding GDFT, with no clinically significant differences in outcomes, and offers increased ease of use as well as fewer missing data points. The NICOM may be a viable alternative monitor to guide GDFT.