BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (L-PM) are an emerging effective and safe technology that offer an alternative to conventional pacemakers (C-PM) for right ventricular stimulation. However, there is little information about their potential benefits for quality of life (QoL) in patients with L-PM. We compared QoL between patients with L-PM and C-PM. METHODS: The study population comprised patients undergoing single chamber pacemaker implantation from December 2016 to March 2018. The SF-36 questionnaire was used to evaluate QoL at baseline and at 6 months of followup. We also used a questionnaire consisted of 10 specific questions related to the implant procedure. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients (64 C-PM; 42 L-PM) were included. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups (C-PM vs L-PM), except for age (81.5 vs 77.3 years; P = .012) and diabetes (38% vs 17%; P = .021). Baseline SF-36 scores did not differ between the groups. At 6 months followup, patients in the L-PM group scored significantly higher on physical function (63 vs 42; P < .001), physical role (64 vs 36; P = .004), and mental health (75 vs 65; P = .017), even after adjusting for covariates. Pacemaker-related discomfort and physical restrictions were significantly lower for the L-PM group. CONCLUSION: L-PM is associated with better QoL than C-PM in both physical and mental health. Patients undergoing L-PM implantation reported less procedure-related discomfort, physical restriction, and preoccupation.
BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (L-PM) are an emerging effective and safe technology that offer an alternative to conventional pacemakers (C-PM) for right ventricular stimulation. However, there is little information about their potential benefits for quality of life (QoL) in patients with L-PM. We compared QoL between patients with L-PM and C-PM. METHODS: The study population comprised patients undergoing single chamber pacemaker implantation from December 2016 to March 2018. The SF-36 questionnaire was used to evaluate QoL at baseline and at 6 months of followup. We also used a questionnaire consisted of 10 specific questions related to the implant procedure. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients (64 C-PM; 42 L-PM) were included. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups (C-PM vs L-PM), except for age (81.5 vs 77.3 years; P = .012) and diabetes (38% vs 17%; P = .021). Baseline SF-36 scores did not differ between the groups. At 6 months followup, patients in the L-PM group scored significantly higher on physical function (63 vs 42; P < .001), physical role (64 vs 36; P = .004), and mental health (75 vs 65; P = .017), even after adjusting for covariates. Pacemaker-related discomfort and physical restrictions were significantly lower for the L-PM group. CONCLUSION: L-PM is associated with better QoL than C-PM in both physical and mental health. Patients undergoing L-PM implantation reported less procedure-related discomfort, physical restriction, and preoccupation.
Authors: Kevin Willy; Christian Ellermann; Florian Reinke; Benjamin Rath; Julian Wolfes; Lars Eckardt; Florian Doldi; Felix K Wegner; Julia Köbe; Nexhmedin Morina Journal: J Cardiovasc Dev Dis Date: 2022-08-10
Authors: River Hames; J W Awori Hayanga; Diane Schmidt-Krings; Timothy Goldhardt; John Bozek; Donald Siddoway; Stanley Schmidt; John Lobban; Heather K Hayanga Journal: Case Rep Anesthesiol Date: 2021-07-01