Literature DB >> 31960027

Factors influencing the use of leadless or transvenous pacemakers: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Prospective Survey.

Serge Boveda1,2,3, Eloi Marijon3,4, Radoslaw Lenarczyk5, Konstantinos E Iliodromitis6, Francisco Marin7,8, Pascal Defaye9, Aude Solnon10, Nikolaos Dagres11, Tatjana S Potpara12,13.   

Abstract

To study the proportion of leadless pacemaker (LL-PM) implants and the factors influencing the choice of LL-PM vs. transvenous pacemaker (TV-PM) across tertiary centres in Europe with routine availability of the LL-PM. A European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) prospective snapshot survey using electronically distributed questionnaire sent to participating centres. Participating tertiary cardiac pacing centres prospectively included consecutive patients implanted between November 2018 and January 2019. Questions covered standards of care and policies used for patient management, focusing particularly on the reasons for choosing LL-PM vs. TV-PM. Overall, 21 centres from four countries (France, Netherlands, Spain, and Italy) participated, with eventual data from 798 patients (n = 472, 59% male). With 69 implants, LL-PM represented only 9% of all implants and 36% of the single-chamber pacing group; double-chamber transvenous pacemakers were implanted in 528 patients and biventricular (cardiac resynchronization pacemaker) in 79. The two major reasons reported in favour of LL-PM implantation were an anticipated high risk of infection or low rate of ventricular pacing. Compared to TV-PM, LL-PM patients were more often male (74% vs. 54%, P = 0.009), with greater proportion of valvular heart disease (45% vs. 35%, P = 0.01) and atrial fibrillation (AF; 65% vs. 23%, P < 0.0001), with significantly more comorbidities (≥ one comorbidity, 66% vs. 52%, P = 0.02). This contemporary multicentre European survey shows that LL-PM constitutes a small proportion of all PM implants. Patients implanted with LL-PM were more likely to have AF and a high anticipated risk of infection. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
© The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Atrial fibrillation; European Heart Rhythm Association survey; Infection; Leadless pacing

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31960027     DOI: 10.1093/europace/euz357

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Europace        ISSN: 1099-5129            Impact factor:   5.214


  2 in total

1.  Single-Chamber Leadless Cardiac Pacemaker in Patients Without Atrial Fibrillation: Findings From Campania Leadless Registry.

Authors:  Vincenzo Russo; Antonello D'Andrea; Stefano De Vivo; Anna Rago; Gianluca Manzo; Antonio Bocchetti; Andrea Antonio Papa; Valerio Giordano; Ernesto Ammendola; Berardo Sarubbi; Paolo Golino; Antonio D'Onofrio; Gerardo Nigro
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-01-14

2.  Tricuspid Valve Replacement in a Patient with a Leadless Cardiac Pacemaker: Current Guidelines and Recommendations for Perioperative Management.

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
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.