Literature DB >> 23276101

Procedure times, complication rates, and survival times associated with single-chamber versus dual-chamber pacemaker implantation in dogs with clinical signs of bradyarrhythmia: 54 cases (2004-2009).

David W Genovese1, Amara H Estrada, Herbert W Maisenbacher, Bonnie A Heatwole, Melanie A Powell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare procedure times and major and minor complication rates associated with single-chamber versus dual-chamber pacemaker implantation and with 1-lead, 2-lead, and 3-lead pacemaker implantation in dogs with clinical signs of bradyarrhythmia.
DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 54 dogs that underwent pacemaker implantation because of clinical signs of bradyarrhythmia. PROCEDURES: Medical records of dogs that received pacemakers between July 2004 and December 2009 were reviewed for information regarding signalment, diagnosis, pacemaker implantation, pacemaker type, complications, and survival time. Analyses were performed to determine significant differences in anesthesia time, procedure time, and outcome for dogs on the basis of pacing mode and number of pacing leads.
RESULTS: 28 of 54 (51.9%) dogs received single-chamber pacemakers and 26 (48.1%) received dual-chamber pacemakers. Mean ± SD procedural time was significantly longer for patients with dual-chamber pacemakers (133.5 ± 51.3 minutes) than for patients with single-chamber pacemakers (94.9 ± 37.0 minutes), and procedure time increased significantly as the number of leads increased (1 lead, 102.3 ± 51.1 minutes; 2 leads, 114.9 ± 24.8 minutes; 3 leads, 158.2 ± 8.5 minutes). Rates of major and minor complications were not significantly different between dogs that received single-chamber pacemakers and those that received dual-chamber pacemakers or among dogs grouped on the basis of the number of pacing leads placed. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although dual-chamber pacemaker implantation did result in increased procedural and anesthesia times, compared with single-chamber pacemaker implantation, this did not result in a higher complication rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23276101     DOI: 10.2460/javma.242.2.230

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Vet Med Assoc        ISSN: 0003-1488            Impact factor:   1.936


  5 in total

1.  Retrospective Analysis of Indications and Complications Related to Implantation of Permanent Pacemaker: 25 Years of Experience in 31 Dogs.

Authors:  Agnieszka Noszczyk-Nowak; Marcin Michałek; Karolina Kapturska; Adrian Janiszewski; Robert Pasławski; Piotr Skrzypczak; Urszula Pasławska
Journal:  J Vet Res       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 1.744

2.  2022 Update of the Consensus on the Rational Use of Antithrombotics and Thrombolytics in Veterinary Critical Care (CURATIVE) Domain 1- Defining populations at risk.

Authors:  Armelle deLaforcade; Lenore Bacek; Marie-Claude Blais; Corrin Boyd; Benjamin M Brainard; Daniel L Chan; Stefano Cortellini; Robert Goggs; Guillaume L Hoareau; Amy Koenigshof; Ron Li; Alex Lynch; Alan Ralph; Elizabeth Rozanski; Claire R Sharp
Journal:  J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio)       Date:  2022-05-02

3.  A retrospective review of 146 active and passive fixation bradycardia lead implantations in 74 dogs undergoing pacemaker implantation in a research setting of short term duration.

Authors:  Lynne E Swanson; Barbara A Huibregtse; Brian A Scansen
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 2.741

Review 4.  Indications for permanent pacing in dogs and cats.

Authors:  R A Santilli; F Giacomazzi; D M Porteiro Vázquez; M Perego
Journal:  J Vet Cardiol       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 1.701

5.  Single-Chamber Cardiac Pacemaker Implantation in a Donkey with Complete AV Block: A Long-Term Follow-Up.

Authors:  Markéta Sedlinská; Radovan Kabeš; Miroslav Novák; Filip Kološ; Pavlína Melková
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 2.752

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.