Sarah M. Stoner

Risk Factor Analysis of Permanent Pacemaker Infection

Background. Several host- and procedure-related factors have been reported to increase the risk of permanent pacemaker (PPM) infection on the basis of descriptive analyses of case series. The purpose of this study is to assess the risk factors for PPM infection using case-control study methods.Methods. All patients who had a PPM implanted at our institution from January 1991 to December 2003 were retrospectively reviewed. Each patient who experienced a PPM infection was matched with 2 control subjects by age, sex, year of implantation, and duration of follow-up. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify significant risk factors for PPM infection.Results. Twenty-nine case patients and 58 control subjects met inclusion criteria. The majority (83%) of case patients presented with a pocket infection; a minority (10%) had PPM-related endocarditis. Staphylococcus species (69%) were the most common pathogens. On univariate analysis, previous PPM infection, malignancy, long-term corticosteroid use, multiple device revisions, a permanent central venous catheter, the presence of >2 pacing leads, and a lack of antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of PPM placement were associated with an increased risk of PPM infection. A multivariable logistic regression model identified long-term corticosteroid use (odds ratio [OR], 13.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-151.7; P=.03) and the presence of >2 pacing leads versus 2 leads (OR, 5.41; 95% CI, 1.44-20.29; P=.01) as independent risk factors for PPM infection. In contrast, use of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to PPM implantation had a protective effect (OR, 0.087; 95% CI, 0.016-0.48; P=.005).Conclusions. These findings should assist clinicians in identifying patients who are at increased risk of PPM infection, as well as in developing strategies to minimize the modifiable risks.

Development and feasibility of a parental support intervention for adolescent smokers.

The aim of this investigation was to develop and evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a parental support intervention. A new measure of perceived parental support for stopping smoking was also developed. The sample included 59 adolescent-parent pairs recruited from a mid-sized Midwestern town during 2000–2003. The mean ± SD age of the participants (32 males, 27 females) was 16.3 ± 0.9 (range 14–18) years and 86% were Caucasian, 7% American Indian, 5% African American, and 2% Hispanic. Participants were randomized to parental support or minimum behavioral intervention. Severity of nicotine dependence was evaluated using the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire, and perceived social support was evaluated using the Family Environment Scale and the new measure of perceived parent support for stopping smoking that was developed as part of this investigation. Treatment attendance, adherence, and acceptability were also evaluated. The parental support intervention was feasible but not superior to the minimum behavioral intervention with respect to attendance, retention, or change in support. This study expands on the knowledge of treating adolescent smokers and presents a new assessment measure. The studys limitations are noted. This investigation was funded by NICHHD.