Heart rhythm · 2017
Characterization of a previously unrecognized clinical phenomenon: Delayed shock after cardiac implantable electronic device extraction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Younis Arwa, Beinart Roy, Nehoray Nofrat, Asher Elad, Matetzky Shlomy, Beigel Roy, Wieder Anat, Glikson Michael, Nof Eyal
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead extraction remains a challenging procedure with inherent risk and associated complications.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize and evaluate predictors of delayed shock after transvenous lead extraction with no intraprocedural complications.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of 217 consecutive patients who underwent extraction between 2010 and 2015. The primary end point was sudden onset of shock more than 4 hours after the completion of the procedure. Shock was defined as at least 30 minutes of persistent hypotension, necessitating vasopressors. Patients with mechanical or hemorrhagic shock were excluded.
RESULTS: Seventeen patients (9%) developed delayed shock during the first 24 hours. Reasons for shock were sepsis (47%) or no apparent cause (53%). In multivariate analysis, patients with delayed shock had significantly lower glomerular filtration rate (median estimated glomerular filtration rate 53 mL/min vs 73 mL/min; P = .001), had more signs of systemic infection before extraction (fever, bacteremia, and leukocytosis; P < .05), and had more lead/tip remnants (29% vs 3%; P < .001). Patients presenting with delayed shock had significantly higher mortality rates at 1-year follow-up (10 [59%] vs 40 [23%], respectively; P < .01). Multivariate analysis adjusted for 1-year mortality risk was 114% higher (hazard ratio 2.14; 95% confidence interval 1.02-4.47; P < .05) in patients presenting with delayed shock.
CONCLUSION: We describe a previously unrecognized clinical phenomenon of delayed shock developing after extraction. Patients with predictors of this condition at baseline should be identified and followed up closely. Even with prompt treatment, long-term mortality rates remain high.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize and evaluate predictors of delayed shock after transvenous lead extraction with no intraprocedural complications.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of 217 consecutive patients who underwent extraction between 2010 and 2015. The primary end point was sudden onset of shock more than 4 hours after the completion of the procedure. Shock was defined as at least 30 minutes of persistent hypotension, necessitating vasopressors. Patients with mechanical or hemorrhagic shock were excluded.
RESULTS: Seventeen patients (9%) developed delayed shock during the first 24 hours. Reasons for shock were sepsis (47%) or no apparent cause (53%). In multivariate analysis, patients with delayed shock had significantly lower glomerular filtration rate (median estimated glomerular filtration rate 53 mL/min vs 73 mL/min; P = .001), had more signs of systemic infection before extraction (fever, bacteremia, and leukocytosis; P < .05), and had more lead/tip remnants (29% vs 3%; P < .001). Patients presenting with delayed shock had significantly higher mortality rates at 1-year follow-up (10 [59%] vs 40 [23%], respectively; P < .01). Multivariate analysis adjusted for 1-year mortality risk was 114% higher (hazard ratio 2.14; 95% confidence interval 1.02-4.47; P < .05) in patients presenting with delayed shock.
CONCLUSION: We describe a previously unrecognized clinical phenomenon of delayed shock developing after extraction. Patients with predictors of this condition at baseline should be identified and followed up closely. Even with prompt treatment, long-term mortality rates remain high.