BACKGROUND: Prior studies have yielded inconsistent results on bradyarrhythmias requiring a permanent pacemaker (PPM) after cardiac transplant. This study evaluated the predictors for PPM requirement, long-term outcomes, and influence of implant timing and device programming on prognosis after cardiac transplant. METHODS: This study prospectively evaluated 1,307 recipients from 1985 to 2007 at Cleveland Clinic by structured follow-up and compared the outcomes of patients with and without bradyarrhythmias requiring PPM after transplantation. The primary end point was all-cause mortality or retransplant. RESULTS: Recipients, aged 50 +/- 15 years (donors, 33 +/- 14 years), were monitored 82 +/- 59 months, with PPM indicated in 106 (8.1%), including 61 (57.5%) early and 44 (42.5%) late. Biatrial technique strongly predicted PPM requirement (OR [odds ratio], 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63-4.20; p < 0.001), and survival/retransplant outcomes were comparable between those with early, late, and no PPM requirement: 5-year primary event-free rate was 80.4% (early) vs 72.6% (late; p = 0.480) and 80.4% (early) vs 73.2% (none, p = 0.550) and 72.6% (late) vs 73.2% (none; p = 0.960). Excess atrial fibrillation was noted among PPM recipients (PPM, 12.3% vs no PPM, 6.3%; p = 0.02) with high initial DDD programming in 92.5% (98 of 106). Sinus rhythm with intact atrioventricular conduction at 6 months was present in 69 (85%), yet 67 (67%) remained DDD programmed, with mean 26.0% +/- 38.0% right ventricular pacing. CONCLUSIONS: No excess mortality is associated with a PPM after cardiac transplantation, and biatrial technique strongly predicts PPM requirement. Increased atrial fibrillation among PPM recipients may be related to right ventricular stimulation with dual-chamber pacing.
BACKGROUND: Prior studies have yielded inconsistent results on bradyarrhythmias requiring a permanent pacemaker (PPM) after cardiac transplant. This study evaluated the predictors for PPM requirement, long-term outcomes, and influence of implant timing and device programming on prognosis after cardiac transplant. METHODS: This study prospectively evaluated 1,307 recipients from 1985 to 2007 at Cleveland Clinic by structured follow-up and compared the outcomes of patients with and without bradyarrhythmias requiring PPM after transplantation. The primary end point was all-cause mortality or retransplant. RESULTS: Recipients, aged 50 +/- 15 years (donors, 33 +/- 14 years), were monitored 82 +/- 59 months, with PPM indicated in 106 (8.1%), including 61 (57.5%) early and 44 (42.5%) late. Biatrial technique strongly predicted PPM requirement (OR [odds ratio], 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63-4.20; p < 0.001), and survival/retransplant outcomes were comparable between those with early, late, and no PPM requirement: 5-year primary event-free rate was 80.4% (early) vs 72.6% (late; p = 0.480) and 80.4% (early) vs 73.2% (none, p = 0.550) and 72.6% (late) vs 73.2% (none; p = 0.960). Excess atrial fibrillation was noted among PPM recipients (PPM, 12.3% vs no PPM, 6.3%; p = 0.02) with high initial DDD programming in 92.5% (98 of 106). Sinus rhythm with intact atrioventricular conduction at 6 months was present in 69 (85%), yet 67 (67%) remained DDD programmed, with mean 26.0% +/- 38.0% right ventricular pacing. CONCLUSIONS: No excess mortality is associated with a PPM after cardiac transplantation, and biatrial technique strongly predicts PPM requirement. Increased atrial fibrillation among PPM recipients may be related to right ventricular stimulation with dual-chamber pacing.
Authors: Rasmus Rivinius; Matthias Helmschrott; Ann-Kathrin Rahm; Fabrice F Darche; Dierk Thomas; Tom Bruckner; Andreas O Doesch; Philipp Ehlermann; Hugo A Katus; Edgar Zitron Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Caleb Norton; Benjamin Holmes; Asad Al Aboud; Eun-Jeong Kim; Holly Gonzales; Christopher Ellis; Roy John; George H Crossley; Jay Montgomery Journal: Case Rep Cardiol Date: 2019-01-03
Authors: Anees Thajudeen; Eric C Stecker; Michael Shehata; Jignesh Patel; Xunzhang Wang; John H McAnulty; Jon Kobashigawa; Sumeet S Chugh Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 5.501