Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2020
Complications of leadless vs conventional (lead) artificial pacemakers - a retrospective review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Sattar Yasar, Ullah Waqas, Roomi Sohaib, Rauf Hiba, Mukhtar Maryam, Ahmad Asrar, Ali Zain, Abedin Muhammad Shan-Ul-, Alraies M Chadi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPM) are introduced in cardiovascular market with a goal to avoid lead- and pocket-associated complications due to conventional artificial pacemakers (CPM). The comparison of LPM and CPM complications is not well studied at a case by case level.
METHODS: Comprehensive literature was searched on multiple databases performed from inception to December 2019 and revealed 204 cases that received LPM with a comparison of CPM. The data of complications were extracted, screened by independent authors and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).
RESULTS: The complications of CPM were high in comparison to LPM in terms of electrode dislodgement (56% vs 7% of cases, p-value < .0001), pocket site infection rate (16% vs 3.4%, p-value = 0.02), and a lead fracture rate (8% vs 0%, p-value = 0.04). LPMs had a statistically non-significant two-times high risk of pericardial effusion (8%) compared to CPMs (4%) with a p-value = 0.8.
CONCLUSION: LPMs appear to have a better safety profile than CPMs. There was a low pocket site and lead-related infections in LPM as compared to CPM. However, LPM can have twice the risk of pericardial effusion than CPMs, but this was not statistically significant.
METHODS: Comprehensive literature was searched on multiple databases performed from inception to December 2019 and revealed 204 cases that received LPM with a comparison of CPM. The data of complications were extracted, screened by independent authors and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).
RESULTS: The complications of CPM were high in comparison to LPM in terms of electrode dislodgement (56% vs 7% of cases, p-value < .0001), pocket site infection rate (16% vs 3.4%, p-value = 0.02), and a lead fracture rate (8% vs 0%, p-value = 0.04). LPMs had a statistically non-significant two-times high risk of pericardial effusion (8%) compared to CPMs (4%) with a p-value = 0.8.
CONCLUSION: LPMs appear to have a better safety profile than CPMs. There was a low pocket site and lead-related infections in LPM as compared to CPM. However, LPM can have twice the risk of pericardial effusion than CPMs, but this was not statistically significant.