Kardiologia polska · 2025
Quality of life in patients with a leadless pacemaker versus transvenous pacemaker.
СтатьяСравнительное 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.
Warwas Szymon, Jędrzejczyk-Patej Ewa, Kowalski Oskar, Sokal Adam, Pluta Sławomir, Kowalska Wiktoria, Mazurek Michał, Lenarczyk Radosław, Kalarus Zbigniew, Średniawa Beata
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The transvenous pacemaker (PM) is a well-accepted device for advanced atrioventricular block and sick sinus syndrome, but it is associated with complications. Leadless pacemakers (LPM) offer a solution by eliminating transvenous leads and the PM pocket, potentially improving outcomes. However, the impact of LPM on quality of life (QoL) remains understudied.
AIMS: To compare QoL of patients with leadless versus transvenous PMs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This single-center prospective study included all comers with LPMs implanted between January 2016 and March 2022. A cohort of transvenous PM patients was matched to LPM subjects by age, sex, left ventricle ejection fraction, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and indication for the device implantation. All patients were requested to complete two standardized questionnaires: the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), 12 months after device implantation.
RESULTS: Patients with LPMs (n = 31) and the matched transvenous PM group (n = 31) did not differ regarding baseline characteristics. The median MLHFQ total score was 33.5 (0-88) for the LPM and 21 (3-68) for the PM group (P = 0.80). The median total score for the SF-36 questionnaire was 54 (8-140) vs. 35 (14-105) for LPM and PM, respectively (P = 0.86). No differences were found between leadless and transvenous PM subgroups both for mental and physical QoL assessed in MLHFQ (6 [2-9.5] vs. 2 [0-6]; P = 0.08; 9.5 [2-19] vs. 7 [1-12]; P = 0.52, respectively) and in the domains of SF-36.
CONCLUSIONS: QoL after device implantation does not differ between patients with leadless and transvenous PMs.
AIMS: To compare QoL of patients with leadless versus transvenous PMs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This single-center prospective study included all comers with LPMs implanted between January 2016 and March 2022. A cohort of transvenous PM patients was matched to LPM subjects by age, sex, left ventricle ejection fraction, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and indication for the device implantation. All patients were requested to complete two standardized questionnaires: the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), 12 months after device implantation.
RESULTS: Patients with LPMs (n = 31) and the matched transvenous PM group (n = 31) did not differ regarding baseline characteristics. The median MLHFQ total score was 33.5 (0-88) for the LPM and 21 (3-68) for the PM group (P = 0.80). The median total score for the SF-36 questionnaire was 54 (8-140) vs. 35 (14-105) for LPM and PM, respectively (P = 0.86). No differences were found between leadless and transvenous PM subgroups both for mental and physical QoL assessed in MLHFQ (6 [2-9.5] vs. 2 [0-6]; P = 0.08; 9.5 [2-19] vs. 7 [1-12]; P = 0.52, respectively) and in the domains of SF-36.
CONCLUSIONS: QoL after device implantation does not differ between patients with leadless and transvenous PMs.