Literature DB >> 28197280

Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Valve Surgery in Adult Patients in Current Surgical Era.

Bandar Al-Ghamdi1, Yaseen Mallawi2, Azam Shafquat1, Alexandra Ledesma2, Nadiah AlRuwaili2, Mohamed Shoukri3, Shahid Khan2, Aly Al Sanei2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after cardiac surgery is required in 0.4-6% of patients depending on cardiac surgery type. PPM implantation in the early postoperative period may reduce morbidity and postoperative hospital stay. We performed a retrospective review of electronic medical records of adult patients with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), valve surgery, or both, over a 3-year period. Our aim was to identify predictors of PPM requirements and PPM dependency on follow-up in the current surgical era.
METHODS: After exclusion of patients with congenital heart disease, patients who already had a PPM or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), and patients with an indication for PPM or ICD before surgery, we identified 1,234 adult patients who underwent cardiac surgery between January 2007 and December 2009. A retrospective review of electronic medical records and pacemaker clinic data was performed.
RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 46.65 ± 16 years, and 59% were males. CABG was performed in 575 (46.6%) cases, aortic valve replacement in 263 (21.3%), mitral valve replacement in 333 (27%), and tricuspid valve replacement in 76 patients (6.2%). Twenty patients (1.6%) required implantation of a PPM postoperatively. Indications for PPM implantation included complete atrioventricular (AV) block in 13 (65%), sick sinus syndrome in three (15%), and atrial fibrillation (AF) with a slow ventricular rate in four (20%). Predictors for PPM requirement by multivariate analysis were the presence of pulmonary hypertension (P-HTN), reoperation, and left bundle branch block (LBBB) (P < 0.05). Late follow-up was available in 18 patients, at 84.5 ± 30 months. Eleven patients (61%) were PPM dependent on long-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients at high risk for PPM implantation after cardiac surgery include those with P-HTN, reoperation, and pre-existing LBBB. Of those receiving a PPM, about one-third will recover at least partially at long-term follow-up. We recommend preoperative assessment for risk of requiring postoperative PPM, to counsel patients about this risk and early PPM implantation in high-risk patients who are PPM dependent after surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiac surgery; Conduction system; Pacemaker

Year:  2016        PMID: 28197280      PMCID: PMC5295576          DOI: 10.14740/cr480w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiol Res        ISSN: 1923-2829


Introduction

Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after cardiac surgery is required in 0.4-6% of patients depending on cardiac surgery type [1-14]. In recent times, the incidence of postoperative PPM implantation has decreased due to improvements in surgical techniques, technological innovations and enhanced understanding of the mechanisms of injury, which generate the arrhythmia [15]. On the other hand, some studies have shown an increased incidence of PPM implantation after cardiac surgery after the year 2000 [16]. Identifying the patients who are at high risk for postoperative PPM implantation is important as it may reduce morbidity and postoperative hospital stay [12]. Several predictors of postoperative PPM implantations have been studied and observed; however, the risk factors for PPM implantation have been inconsistent across various studies. Our research aim was to determine the incidence and predictors for increased risk of postoperative PPM implantation in coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and valve replacement surgeries.

Materials and Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of 1,234 patients who underwent CABG, valve replacement surgery, or both at the Heart Centre, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre between January 2007 and December 2009. Inclusion criteria consisted of all CABG, valve replacement surgery, or both. Twenty patients received PPM within 90 days after cardiac surgery. The 1,214 remaining patients served as controls. The demographic, clinical, preoperative, operative, and early postoperative data were obtained from the cardiac surgery database at our Heart Centre. This prospective database is part of an ongoing database of patients undergoing cardiac surgery at our center. The perioperative electrocardiograms (ECGs) were collected routinely in the MUSE Cardiology Information System (GE Healthcare) which is the ECG database management system in our hospital. The ECG data of patients receiving a PPM were compared to those of the control group. Patients with an indication for pacemaker implantation before the cardiac surgery and patients who underwent postoperative implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation who did not have indication for the permanent pacing were excluded from the study. Data from pacemaker clinic follow-up visits were used to determine pacemaker dependency. The underlying rhythm was obtained by programming the pacemaker to VVI rate of 40 beats per minute during the patient’s visit to the pacemaker outpatient clinic. Pacemaker dependency was defined as continuous pacing with lowering pacemaker rate to 40 beats per minutes for at least 10 s [12].

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics for the continuous variables were reported as mean ± standard deviation and categorical variables were summarized as frequencies and percentages. The continuous variables of the two groups of patients were compared by Student’s independent t-test, while the categorical variables were compared by Chi-square test. Logistic multivariate regression analysis was used to define the major predictors of requiring PPM postoperatively. The statistical level of significance was set at P < 0.05.

Ethical consideration

The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013 and it was approved by research ethics board (REB) in our hospital prior to data collection and analysis.

Results

Patients’ age was 46.65 ± 16 years, and 59% were males. CABG was performed in 575 (46.6%) cases, aortic valve replacement in 263 (21.3%), mitral valve replacement in 333 (27%), and tricuspid valve replacement in 76 patients (6.2%) (Tables 1 and 2). Twenty patients (1.6%) required implantation of a PPM postoperatively. Indications for PPM implantation included complete atrioventricular (AV) block in 13 patients (65%), sick sinus syndrome with symptomatic bradycardia in three (15%), and atrial fibrillation (AF) with a slow ventricular rate in four (20%) (Fig. 1). The types of cardiac surgery in PPM patients are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The timing of pacemaker implantation ranged from 7 to 73 days after surgery, with a mean of 17.65 ± 14 and median of 13.5 days. The delay in implantation in two patients was due to prolonged stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and active infection. Two patients were discharged with junctional rhythm because they did not initially accept PPM implantation. Later on, when they presented for follow-up with no improvement in their rhythm, these patients did undergo PPM implantation. With exclusion of these two patients who were implanted on another admission, the mean time to PPM implantation was 14.89 ± 5.4 days, and median 13.5 days.
Table 1

Preoperative Data

PPM, no. (%)Non-PPM, no. (%)P value
N201,214
Demographic data
  Age41.6 ± 15.651.3 ± 16.40.009
  Age > 65 years2 (10%)279 (23%)0.170
  Gender (Male)11 (55.0%)721 (59.4%)0.692
  Hypertension6.0 (30%)576 (47.4%)0.121
  Diabetes7.0 (35%)522 (43%)0.473
  Dyslipidemia0.0 (0%)333 (27.4%)0.006
  Pulmonary hypertension12 (60%)240 (19.8%)0.000
  Peripheral vascular disease1.0 (5%)25 (2.1%)0.364
  Old CVA1.0 (5%)42 (3.5%)0.709
  Renal impairment (creatinine > 1.5)1.0 (5%)116 (9.6%)0.490
LV systolic function (LVEF)
  Normal > 55%0.0 (0%)57 (4.7%)0.321
  Mildly impaired 45-55%0.0 (0%)98 (8.1%)0.185
  Moderately impaired 35-44%4.0 (20%)187 (15.4%)0.573
  Moderately to severely impaired 25-34%10 (50%)449 (37%)0.232
  Severely impaired < 25%6.0 (30%)419 (34.5%)0.673
Coronary artery disease
  Left main stenosis (> 50%)0 (0%)168 (13.8%)0.072
  Proximal LAD stenosis (> 70%)1 (5%)520 (42.8%)0.001
  LCX1 (5%)453 (37.3%)0.003
  RCA3 (15%)460 (37.9%)0.036
Drugs
  β-blockers9 (45%)543 (44.7%)0.981
  Calcium channel blockers0 (0%)51 (4.2%)0.796
  Digoxin1 (5%)47 (3.9%)0.796
  Antiarrhythmic0 (0%)9 (0.7%)0.699

PPM: permanent pacemaker; non-PPM: non-permanent pacemaker; CVA: cerebrovascular accident; LV: left ventricle; EF: ejection fraction; LAD: left anterior descending artery; LCX: left circumflex; RCA: right coronary artery.

Table 2

Operative Data

PPMNon-PPMP value
N201,214
Elective19 (95%)1,125 (92.7%)0.691
Emergency1.0 (5%)89 (7.3%)0.691
Reoperation12 (60%)301 (24.9%)0.000
CABG alone3.0 (15%)572 (47.2%)0.004
Valve alone19 (95%)703 (58.1%)0.001
Combined2 (10%)123 (10.2%)0.478
MVR10 (50%)323 (26.6%)0.001
AVR6.0 (30%)257 (21.2%)0.339
TVR7.0 (35%)69 (5.7%)0.000
PVR0.0 (0%)16 (1.3%)0.605
BPT (min)169.8 ± 77.2125.3 ± 66.50.003
XCT (min)125 ± 65.389 ± 480.001
XCT > 120 min3.3 ± 23 ± 20.622
Minimum temperature (°C)32 ± 1.732 ± 4.80.687
Cold cardioplegia2 (10%)196 (16.1%)0.458

PPM: permanent pacemaker; non-PPM: non-permanent pacemaker; CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; AVR: aortic valve replacement; MVR: mitral valve replacement/repair; AVR: aortic valve replacement/repair; TVR: tricuspid valve replacement/repair; PVR: pulmonic valve replacement/repair; BPT: cardiopulmonary bypass time; XCT: aortic cross-clamp time.

Figure 1

Indications of pacemaker. CHB: complete heart block; AF: atrial fibrillation; VR: ventricular rate; SSS: sick sinus syndrome.

Figure 2

Type of surgery in the patients with permanent pacemaker. CABG: coronary artery bypass surgery; MV: mitral valve; TV: tricuspid valve; AV: aortic valve; R: replacement; rep: repair.

Figure 3

First vs. redo surgery in patients with permanent pacemakers.

PPM: permanent pacemaker; non-PPM: non-permanent pacemaker; CVA: cerebrovascular accident; LV: left ventricle; EF: ejection fraction; LAD: left anterior descending artery; LCX: left circumflex; RCA: right coronary artery. PPM: permanent pacemaker; non-PPM: non-permanent pacemaker; CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; AVR: aortic valve replacement; MVR: mitral valve replacement/repair; AVR: aortic valve replacement/repair; TVR: tricuspid valve replacement/repair; PVR: pulmonic valve replacement/repair; BPT: cardiopulmonary bypass time; XCT: aortic cross-clamp time. Indications of pacemaker. CHB: complete heart block; AF: atrial fibrillation; VR: ventricular rate; SSS: sick sinus syndrome. Type of surgery in the patients with permanent pacemaker. CABG: coronary artery bypass surgery; MV: mitral valve; TV: tricuspid valve; AV: aortic valve; R: replacement; rep: repair. First vs. redo surgery in patients with permanent pacemakers. Table 1 shows the preoperative clinical profile of PPM patients compared with non-PPM patients. Patients with PPM were younger than those who did not require PPM. Dyslipidemia was more frequent in the non-PPM group. There were no significant differences in gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, old cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs), and left ventricular ejection fraction between the two groups. Pulmonary hypertension (P-HTN) was more prevalent in PPM patients. The presence of coronary artery disease (left anterior descending artery (LAD), left circumflex (LCX), and right coronary artery (RCA)) was seen more in the non-PPM group. The use of beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, digoxin, and antiarrhythmic medications was equal in the two groups. Most of the surgeries (95%) were done on an elective basis. Reoperation surgeries were performed in 313 patients (25.3%) (Table 2). Table 3 shows the preoperative ECG characteristics of the patients. Patients requiring PPM had a higher incidence of preoperative conduction disorders in the form of left bundle branch block (LBBB), and first-degree AV block.
Table 3

Preoperative Electrocardiogram (ECG)

PPM, no. (%)Non-PPM, no (%)P value
N201,214
AFIB5 (25%)179 (14.7%)0.202
Any BBB3 (15%)91 (7.5%)0.213
LBBB2 (10%)28 (2.3%)0.027
RBBB2 (10%)64 (5.3%)0.351
First-degree AVB4 (20%)66 (5.4%)0.005

PPM: permanent pacemaker; non-PPM: non-permanent pacemaker; AF: atrial fibrillation; BBB: bundle branch block; LBBB: left bundle branch block; RBBB: right bundle branch block; AVB: atrioventricular block.

PPM: permanent pacemaker; non-PPM: non-permanent pacemaker; AF: atrial fibrillation; BBB: bundle branch block; LBBB: left bundle branch block; RBBB: right bundle branch block; AVB: atrioventricular block. Patients requiring PPM had a longer overall postoperative hospitalization, but not necessarily a longer ICU stay. There was no difference in mortality between the two groups (Table 4).
Table 4

Postoperative Data

PPM, no (%)Non-PPM, no (%)P value
N201,214
Perioperative MI0.0 (0%)267 (22%)0.018
Elevated Trop-T (> 0.01)8.0 (40%)689 (56.8%)0.134
ICU stay (days)6.80 ± 6.09 ± 4.740.311
Hospital stay (days)18.1 ± 11.512.3 ± 8.50.000
Mortality0 (0.0%)92 (7.6%)0.201

PPM: permanent pacemaker; non-PPM: non-permanent pacemaker; MI: myocardial infarction; Trop-T: troponin-T; ICU: intensive care unit.

PPM: permanent pacemaker; non-PPM: non-permanent pacemaker; MI: myocardial infarction; Trop-T: troponin-T; ICU: intensive care unit. Predictors for PPM requirement by multivariate analysis were the presence of P-HTN, reoperation surgery, and LBBB (P < 0.05) (Table 5).
Table 5

Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation

VariablesP valueOR95% confidence interval of the difference
LowerUpper
LBBB0.0422.01.325.54
P-HTN0.0015.081.94113.296
Reoperation0.0014.5151.82811.15

LBB: left buddle branch block; P-HTN: pulmonary hypertension.

LBB: left buddle branch block; P-HTN: pulmonary hypertension. Long-term follow-up was available in 18 pacemaker patients with follow-up periods ranging from 35 to 109 months and a mean of 84.5 ± 30 months. Eleven patients (61%) were PPM dependent.

Discussion

The requirement of PPM in our series was 1.6%, which is consistent with what has been reported previously [3, 12]. The predictors for PPM post-cardiac surgery will be discussed in the order of preoperative, operative, and postoperative periods.

Preoperative predictors

Our patients were younger than what has been reported in previous studies [1-14] due to valve surgery for young patients with rheumatic heart disease. In our study, there was no difference in gender between the PPM and the non-PPM groups, unlike some previous studies which showed female gender as a predictor for PPM implantation [3, 5, 8]. Age above 75 years at the time of surgery was reported previously as a risk factor for requiring a PPM [1, 3, 4, 13, 16, 17], but this was not the case in our patients. Patients with P-HTN were found to have a higher risk of requiring PPM postoperatively. This was also noted in one previous study [7]. The use of rate lowering cardiac medications (e.g., beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, digoxin, and anti-arrhythmic medications) is one of the suggested mechanisms contributing to conduction system damage postoperatively. Some studies showed that preoperative use of antiarrhythmic medications, like digoxin [7], calcium channel blockers [8], amiodarone and sotalol [11], increased the risk for PPM postoperatively, but we found no relation between preoperative medications and the requirement of PPM in our patients. The presence of conduction system disease preoperatively [1, 7], right bundle branch block (RBBB) or LBBB [8, 14], LBBB alone [2, 12], RBBB alone [13, 17], first-degree AV block [14] or left anterior fascicular block (LAFB) [14] was found to be a predictor for requiring PPM postoperatively. In our patients, LBBB was found to be a significant predictor. Preoperative non-sinus rhythm [3, 18] or AF [5] were risk factors in some previous studies but not in our series. The cardiac conduction system is susceptible to damage during cardiac surgery. The main physiopathological mechanisms involved in the development of cardiac conduction disorders postoperatively are myocardial ischemia, inadequate cardiac protection during surgery, and direct surgical injury [15]. Ischemia may be more common in patients with left main or proximal LAD disease [19, 20] but this was not the case in our patients.

Operative predictors

Mechanical trauma to the conduction system arising secondary to valve operation, or other surgeries close to the AV node, is another risk factor for AV node conduction disorder [15]. The need for PPM postoperatively is more common in valve surgeries especially aortic, mitral and tricuspid valve surgeries [1, 3, 4, 9, 12, 16, 18]. We found that of all valve surgeries in general, mitral valve and tricuspid valve surgeries had a higher risk of requiring PPM, but with multivariate analysis, these did not emerge as independent risk factors. In addition to coronary artery disease, ischemic injury of the sinus node or other parts of the conduction system might occur during any cardiac procedure because of inadequate myocardial protection during surgery [15]. Prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time and cross-clamp time have been found in this study as well as in previous studies [8, 11, 16, 18] to be associated with postoperative PPM requirement. Cold blood cardioplegia was also found to be a risk factor in previous studies [3-5], but not in our current study. About 35% of PPM patients in this study were undergoing redo surgery. Reoperation was found in this study to be a significant risk as it was in previous studies [3-5, 18].

Postoperative predictors

Postoperative conduction disturbances [7] and high-grade AV block [6] were found to increase risk of PPM postoperatively. Most of our patients who required PPM had postoperative complete heart block (CHB). In our patients, time to pacemaker implant was longer than what has been reported previously [21] because we enrolled patients with pacemaker implantation up to 3 months postoperatively. About 61% of our patients were pacer dependent on long-term follow-up, which is similar to what has been reported before [12, 22]. From a practical point of view, the decision regarding which patient will require PPM and when to implant the device are the most important clinical questions. According to the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association and Heart Rhythm Society guidelines, PPM implantation is indicated for third-degree and advanced second-degree AV block, at any anatomic level, associated with postoperative AV block which is not expected to resolve after cardiac surgery (level of evidence: C) [23]. The decision about PPM implantation and its timing is left for treating physicians’ discretion. We believe that patients with high-risk factors need to be counseled preoperatively about their risk of requiring PPM postoperatively. Additionally, implantation of the pacemaker early after cardiac surgery is recommended for conduction system disorders which are unlikely to recover. Placing epicardial PPM leads in identified at-risk patients during the surgery, especially with tricuspid valve intervention, may also be helpful.

Limitations of the study

The main limitation in this study is the small number of patients who underwent PPM implantation after cardiac surgery. As a retrospective analysis, the study suffers from a number of limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results: the absence of a prospective validation of the model, the lack of sufficient information on annular calcification and root dilatation, operative data such as root replacement, and extent of perioperative annular debridement, all of which have been identified in earlier studies as predictors of PPM implantation [18].

Conclusion

Patients at high risk for PPM implantation after cardiac surgery include those with the presence of P-HTN, reoperation surgeries, and LBBB. Of those receiving a PPM, about 40% will recover at least partially at long-term follow-up. We recommend preoperative assessment for risk of requiring PPM postoperatively to counsel patients about this risk and early PPM implantation in high-risk patients who are dependent on temporary pacemaker after surgery.
  20 in total

1.  The bioprosthesis type and size influence the postoperative incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery.

Authors:  Maqsood Elahi; Khalid Usmaan
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices): developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Authors:  Andrew E Epstein; John P DiMarco; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Roger A Freedman; Leonard S Gettes; A Marc Gillinov; Gabriel Gregoratos; Stephen C Hammill; David L Hayes; Mark A Hlatky; L Kristin Newby; Richard L Page; Mark H Schoenfeld; Michael J Silka; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Michael O Sweeney; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Christopher E Buller; Mark A Creager; Steven M Ettinger; David P Faxon; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Bruce W Lytle; Rick A Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel; Lynn G Tarkington; Clyde W Yancy
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Indications, effectiveness, and long-term dependency in permanent pacing after cardiac surgery.

Authors:  M Glikson; J A Dearani; L K Hyberger; H V Schaff; S C Hammill; D L Hayes
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1997-11-15       Impact factor: 2.778

4.  Twenty years experience with pediatric pacing: epicardial and transvenous stimulation.

Authors:  J S Sachweh; J F Vazquez-Jimenez; F A Schöndube; S H Daebritz; H Dörge; E G Mühler; B J Messmer
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 4.191

5.  Long-term mortality and pacing outcomes of patients with permanent pacemaker implantation after cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Syed S Raza; Jian-Ming Li; Ranjit John; Lin Y Chen; Venkatakrishna N Tholakanahalli; Mackenzie Mbai; A Selcuk Adabag
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 1.976

6.  Frequency, predictors, and consequences of atrioventricular block after mitral valve repair.

Authors:  Patrick Meimoun; Rachid Zeghdi; Nicola D'Attelis; Alain Berrebi; Eric Braunberger; Alain Deloche; Jean Noel Fabiani; Alain Carpentier
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2002-05-01       Impact factor: 2.778

7.  Risk factors for pacemaker implantation following aortic valve replacement: a single centre experience.

Authors:  G Limongelli; V Ducceschi; A D'Andrea; A Renzulli; B Sarubbi; M De Feo; F Cerasuolo; R Calabrò; M Cotrufo
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.994

8.  Permanent pacemaker implantation after isolated aortic valve replacement: incidence, risk factors and surgical technical aspects.

Authors:  Paolo Nardi; Antonio Pellegrino; Antonio Scafuri; Kyriakos Bellos; Silvia De Propris; Patrizio Polisca; Luigi Chiariello
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown)       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.160

9.  Is use of temporary pacing wires following coronary bypass surgery really necessary?

Authors:  Y Imren; A A Benson; G L Oktar; F H Cheema; G Comas; T Naseem
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino)       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.888

Review 10.  Pacemaker Dependency after Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence.

Authors:  Curtis M Steyers; Rohan Khera; Prashant Bhave
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  4 in total

1.  Incidence and Risk Factors for Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Mitral or Aortic Valve Surgery.

Authors:  Gil Moskowitz; Kimberly N Hong; Gennaro Giustino; A Marc Gillinov; Gorav Ailawadi; Joseph J DeRose; Alexander Iribarne; Alan J Moskowitz; Annetine C Gelijns; Natalia N Egorova
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  A running suture line for aortic valve replacement does not increase the rate of postoperative complete heart block.

Authors:  Ibrahim Sultan; Keith A Dufendach; Arman Kilic; Valentino Bianco; Forozan Navid; Thomas G Gleason
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2018-09-12

3.  Recovery of conduction disorders after sutureless aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Ka Yan Lam; Naomi Timmermans; Ferdi Akca; Erwin Tan; Niels J Verberkmoes; Kim de Kort; Mohamed Soliman-Hamad; Albert H M van Straten
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2021-05-10

4.  Risk factors and a 3-month risk score for predicting pacemaker implantation in patients with atrial fibrillations.

Authors:  Frederik Dalgaard; Jannik Langtved Pallisgaard; Tommi Bo Lindhardt; Gunnar Gislason; Paul Blanche; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Martin H Ruwald
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2020-03-24
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.