Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2022
The jugular approach for leadless pacing: A novel and safe alternative.
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.
Saleem-Talib Shmaila, van Driel Vincent J, Nikolic Tanja, van Wessel Harry, Louman Hellen, Borleffs C Jan Willem, van der Heijden Jeroen, Cox Moniek, Ramanna Hemanth
Аннотация
AIMS: To evaluate safety of leadless pacemaker implantation through the internal jugular vein in a larger cohort with longer follow-up. Moreover, feasibility of non-apical pacing as well as relation between pacing site and QRS duration were assessed.
METHODS: Eighty Two consecutive patients, who received a leadless pacemaker though the internal jugular vein, were included. Electrical parameters were measured at regular follow-up and any complications were registered. Paced QRS interval was compared for three pacing sites, RVOT, RV mid septum, and RV apical septum.
RESULTS: In all patients, the leadless pacemaker was implanted successfully. In 69 patients, the device was implanted in a non-apical position. In 71% of cases, the device could be deployed at first attempt. The median fluoroscopy time was 4.4 min (range 0.9-51) The paced QRS interval was significantly narrower for non-apical pacing sites compared to apical pacing si 156 vs. 179 ms. p = .04, respectively. During mean follow-up of 16 months (range 0-43 months), electrical parameters remained stable. Two complications occurred, which could be resolved during the implant procedure. There were no access site related complications.
CONCLUSION: The jugular approach for leadless pacemaker implantation is feasible and may avoid vascular complications. It facilitates non-apical positioning of leadless pacemakers leading to a narrower paced QRS interval. The jugular approach allows for immediate post procedural ambulation.
METHODS: Eighty Two consecutive patients, who received a leadless pacemaker though the internal jugular vein, were included. Electrical parameters were measured at regular follow-up and any complications were registered. Paced QRS interval was compared for three pacing sites, RVOT, RV mid septum, and RV apical septum.
RESULTS: In all patients, the leadless pacemaker was implanted successfully. In 69 patients, the device was implanted in a non-apical position. In 71% of cases, the device could be deployed at first attempt. The median fluoroscopy time was 4.4 min (range 0.9-51) The paced QRS interval was significantly narrower for non-apical pacing sites compared to apical pacing si 156 vs. 179 ms. p = .04, respectively. During mean follow-up of 16 months (range 0-43 months), electrical parameters remained stable. Two complications occurred, which could be resolved during the implant procedure. There were no access site related complications.
CONCLUSION: The jugular approach for leadless pacemaker implantation is feasible and may avoid vascular complications. It facilitates non-apical positioning of leadless pacemakers leading to a narrower paced QRS interval. The jugular approach allows for immediate post procedural ambulation.