Routine microbiological studies should not be con- ducted on CIEDs that have been removed for noninfec- tious reasons. (Level of Evidence: B) Areas in Need of Further Research Tremendous gains in our knowledge of CIED infections have occurred over the past 5 years. Because of the increasing rate of these infections among an increasing pool of device recipients, it is imperative that aggressive investigation of all aspects of device infection be conducted. The following topics represent areas that the writing group identified as critical for further study: 1. Determine the safety of 1-stage contralateral device replacement compared with delayed device replace- ment as a management scheme. 2. Define a scoring system that distinguishes patients with S aureus bacteremia and no other evidence of device infection who prove to have CIED infection from those who do not, so that unnecessary device removal can be avoided. 3. Develop CIEDs that are less prone to infection. 4. Develop adjunctive therapies that eliminate biofilm- laden microorganisms. 5. Determine whether there is a floor of vegetation size, among other characteristics, that reliably predicts the occurrence of clinically significant pulmonary embolism with percutaneous extraction of an infected lead. 6. Define more clearly the circumstances in which van- comycin should be used as primary prophylaxis for CIED implantation. 7. Identify risk factors and characterize outcomes of CIED infections in large populations that are represen- tative of those treated in clinical practice. 8. Develop a scoring system to assess the risk of serious complications associated with percutaneous removal that will identify a subset of patients for whom median sternotomy for CIED removal is recommended. 9. Assess implantation strategies in infants and children for CIED with respect to both leads and generators that will reduce both short- and long-term infection rates. 10. 