Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2021
Leadless pacemakers in critically ill patients requiring prolonged cardiac pacing: A multicenter international study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Clementy Nicolas, Coelho Roxane, Veltmann Christian, Marijon Eloi, Tolosana José, Galand Vincent, Ploux Sylvain, Eschalier Romain, Simeon Edouard, Blessberger Hermann, Mueller-Leisse Johanna, Pujol-Lopez Margarida, Martins Raphaël, Ritter Philippe, Steinwender Clemens, Babuty Dominique
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Temporary transvenous pacing in critically ill patients requiring prolonged cardiac pacing is associated with a high risk of complications. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of self-contained intracardiac leadless pacemaker (LPM) implantation in this population.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients implanted with a Micra LPM during the hospitalization in an intensive care unit were retrospectively included. Inclusion criteria were: more than or equal to 1 supracaval central venous line, or a ventilation tube, or intravenous antibiotic therapy for ongoing sepsis or bacteremia. Patients with a history of the previous implantation of a pacemaker were excluded. Out of 1016 patients implanted with an LPM, 99 met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 75 years and Charlson comorbidity index 7. LPM implantation was successfully performed in 98% of cases, with a perioperative complication rate of 5%, mainly cardiac injuries. In-hospital mortality rate was 6%. No late (>30 days) device-related complication occurred, especially no infection.
CONCLUSIONS: LPM appears as an acceptable alternative to conventional temporary transvenous pacing in selected critically ill patients requiring prolonged cardiac pacing, especially regarding the risk of infection.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients implanted with a Micra LPM during the hospitalization in an intensive care unit were retrospectively included. Inclusion criteria were: more than or equal to 1 supracaval central venous line, or a ventilation tube, or intravenous antibiotic therapy for ongoing sepsis or bacteremia. Patients with a history of the previous implantation of a pacemaker were excluded. Out of 1016 patients implanted with an LPM, 99 met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 75 years and Charlson comorbidity index 7. LPM implantation was successfully performed in 98% of cases, with a perioperative complication rate of 5%, mainly cardiac injuries. In-hospital mortality rate was 6%. No late (>30 days) device-related complication occurred, especially no infection.
CONCLUSIONS: LPM appears as an acceptable alternative to conventional temporary transvenous pacing in selected critically ill patients requiring prolonged cardiac pacing, especially regarding the risk of infection.