Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2023
Leadless pacemaker with transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A single-center experience.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Gao Feng, Kherallah Riyad, Koetting Mackenzie, Simpson Leo, Seger John, Koneru Srikanth, Coselli Joseph, Preventza Ourania, Orozco-Sevilla Vicente, Manon Nastasya, Silva Guilherme V
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (LP) in transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) patients is not well known due to paucity of data. Herein, we compared outcomes between leadless pacemakers to traditional dual chamber pacemakers (DCP) following TAVI.
METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was conducted, including a total of 27 patients with LP and 33 patients with DCP after TAVI between November 2013 and May 2021. We compared baseline demographics, pacemaker indications, complication rates, percent pacing, and ejection fractions.
RESULTS: Leading indications for pacemaker implant were complete heart block (74% LP, 73% DCP) and high degree atrioventricular block (26% LP, 21% DCP). Twenty-two (82%) LP patients had devices implanted in the right ventricular septal-apex. Three (9%) DCP patients required rehospitalization for pocket related complications. Zero pacemaker-related mortality was observed in both groups. Frequency of ventricular pacing and ejection fraction was similar between LP and DCP groups.
CONCLUSION: From this single-center retrospective study, LP implant was feasible following TAVI and was found to have comparable performance to DCPs. LPs may be a reasonable alternative in TAVI patients where single ventricular pacing is indicated. Larger studies are required to validate these findings.
METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was conducted, including a total of 27 patients with LP and 33 patients with DCP after TAVI between November 2013 and May 2021. We compared baseline demographics, pacemaker indications, complication rates, percent pacing, and ejection fractions.
RESULTS: Leading indications for pacemaker implant were complete heart block (74% LP, 73% DCP) and high degree atrioventricular block (26% LP, 21% DCP). Twenty-two (82%) LP patients had devices implanted in the right ventricular septal-apex. Three (9%) DCP patients required rehospitalization for pocket related complications. Zero pacemaker-related mortality was observed in both groups. Frequency of ventricular pacing and ejection fraction was similar between LP and DCP groups.
CONCLUSION: From this single-center retrospective study, LP implant was feasible following TAVI and was found to have comparable performance to DCPs. LPs may be a reasonable alternative in TAVI patients where single ventricular pacing is indicated. Larger studies are required to validate these findings.