American heart journal · 2017
Outcomes of cardiac pacing in adult patients after a Fontan operation.
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.
Egbe Alexander C, Huntley Geoffery D, Connolly Heidi M, Ammash Naser M, Deshmukh Abhishek J, Khan Arooj R, Said Sameh M, Akintoye Emmanuel, Warnes Carole A, Kapa Suraj
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cardiac pacing can be challenging after a Fontan operation, and limited data exist regarding pacing in adult Fontan patients. The objectives of our study were to determine risk factors for pacing and occurrence of device-related complications (DRCs) and pacemaker reinterventions.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of Fontan patients from 1994 through 2014. We defined DRCs as lead failure, lead recall, cardiac perforation, lead thrombus/vegetation, or device-related infection, and cardiovascular adverse events (CAEs) as venous thrombosis, stroke, death, or heart transplant. Pacemaker reintervention was defined as lead failure or recall.
RESULTS: Of 439 patients, 166 (38%) had pacemakers implanted (79 during childhood; 87, adulthood); 114 patients (69%) received epicardial leads initially, and 52 (31%), endocardial leads. Pacing was initially atrial in 52 patients (31%); ventricular, 30 (18%); or dual chamber, 84 (51%). There were 37 reinterventions (1.9% per year) and 48 DRCs (2.4% per year). Pacemaker implantation during childhood was a risk factor for DRCs (hazard ratio, 2.01 [CI, 1.22-5.63]; P = .03). There were 70 CAEs (venous thrombosis, 5; stroke, 11; transplant, 8; and death, 46), yielding a rate of 3.5% per year. DRCs, CAEs, and reintervention rates were comparable for patients with epicardial or endocardial leads.
CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of adult Fontan patients referred to Mayo Clinic had pacemaker implantation. Epicardial leads were associated with high rate of pacemaker reinterventions but similar DRC rates in comparison to endocardial leads.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of Fontan patients from 1994 through 2014. We defined DRCs as lead failure, lead recall, cardiac perforation, lead thrombus/vegetation, or device-related infection, and cardiovascular adverse events (CAEs) as venous thrombosis, stroke, death, or heart transplant. Pacemaker reintervention was defined as lead failure or recall.
RESULTS: Of 439 patients, 166 (38%) had pacemakers implanted (79 during childhood; 87, adulthood); 114 patients (69%) received epicardial leads initially, and 52 (31%), endocardial leads. Pacing was initially atrial in 52 patients (31%); ventricular, 30 (18%); or dual chamber, 84 (51%). There were 37 reinterventions (1.9% per year) and 48 DRCs (2.4% per year). Pacemaker implantation during childhood was a risk factor for DRCs (hazard ratio, 2.01 [CI, 1.22-5.63]; P = .03). There were 70 CAEs (venous thrombosis, 5; stroke, 11; transplant, 8; and death, 46), yielding a rate of 3.5% per year. DRCs, CAEs, and reintervention rates were comparable for patients with epicardial or endocardial leads.
CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of adult Fontan patients referred to Mayo Clinic had pacemaker implantation. Epicardial leads were associated with high rate of pacemaker reinterventions but similar DRC rates in comparison to endocardial leads.