Dataset Information

Outcomes of primary leadless pacemaker implantation: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the last decade, leadless pacemakers (LPMs) have turned into a prevalent alternative to traditional transvenous (TV) pacemakers; however, there is no consolidated data on LPM implantation in emergencies.

Methods

Digital databases were searched for this review and four relevant studies, including 1276 patients were included in this review with procedure duration, fluoroscopic time, major complications, and mortality as primary outcomes and pacing threshold, impedance, sensing of LPM, and hospital stay as secondary outcomes.

Results

Gonzales et al. and Marschall et al. showed the duration of the procedure to be 180 ± 45 versus 324.6 ± 92 and 39.9 ± 8.7 versus 54.9 ± 9.8, respectively. Zhang et al. demonstrated the duration of the procedure and fluoroscopy time to be 36 ± 13.4 and 11.1 ± 3.1, respectively. Similarly, Schiavone et al. exhibited intermediate times of implantation at 60 (45-80) versus 50 (40-65) and fluoroscopic times at 6.5 (5-9.7) versus 5.1 (3.1-9). Hospital stay was more with a temp-perm pacemaker as compared to LPM and pacing parameters were not significantly different in all the studies.

Conclusion

For underlying arrhythmias, whenever appropriate, our review shows that LPMs may be a better option than temporary pacemakers, even as an urgent treatment.

SUBMITTER: Noor TA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10646376 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcomes of primary leadless pacemaker implantation: A systematic review.

Noor Tayyiba Ahmed TA Rana Muhammad Omer Rehman MOR Kumari Sapna S Umer Bakht B Malik Jahanzeb J Ashraf Amna A Faraz Maria M Hussain Tabligh T Awais Muhammad M Mehmoodi Amin A Hayat Azmat A

Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc 20230822 6

<h4>Background</h4>During the last decade, leadless pacemakers (LPMs) have turned into a prevalent alternative to traditional transvenous (TV) pacemakers; however, there is no consolidated data on LPM implantation in emergencies.<h4>Methods</h4>Digital databases were searched for this review and four relevant studies, including 1276 patients were included in this review with procedure duration, fluoroscopic time, major complications, and mortality as primary outcomes and pacing threshold, impeda ...[more]

PMID: 37606307

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsSince their introduction in 1958, traditional cardiac pacemakers have undergone considerable upgrades over the years, but they continue to have a complication rate of ∼3.8%-12.4%. There are no randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes of leadless pacemakers (LPM) with single-chamber transvenous pacemakers (TV-VVI). The aim is to assess the differences in the procedural complications and in-hospital outcomes between LPM and TV-VVI implants.Methods and resultsWe queried the national inpatient database from 2016 to 2019 to include adult patients undergoing LPM and TV-VVI. Admissions for leadless and single-lead transvenous pacemakers were identified by their appropriate ICD-10 codes. Complications were identified using ICD-10 codes that mostly represent initial encounter. The difference in outcomes was assessed using multivariable logistic regression and 1:1 propensity score matching between the two cohorts. Thirty-five thousand four hundred thirty expanded samples of admissions were retrieved of which 27 650 (78%) underwent TV-VVI with a mean age 81.3 ± 9.4 years and 7780 (22%) underwent LPM with a mean age of 77.1 ± 12.1 years. The LPM group had a higher likelihood of in-hospital mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.63, 95% CI (1.29-2.05), P < 0.001], vascular complications [aOR: 7.54, 95% CI (3.21-17.68), P < 0.001], venous thromboembolism [aOR: 3.67, 95% CI (2.68-5.02), P < 0.001], cardiac complications [aOR: 1.79, 95% CI (1.59-2.03), P < 0.001], device thrombus formation [aOR: 5.03, 95% CI (2.55-9.92), P < 0.001], and need for a blood transfusion [aOR: 1.54, 95% CI (1.14-2.07), P < 0.005]. The TV-VVI group had higher likelihood of in-hospital pulmonary complications [aOR:0.68, 95% CI (0.54-0.87), P < 0.002] and had a need for device revisions [aOR:0.42, 95% CI (0.23-0.76), P < 0.004].ConclusionThere is a higher likelihood of all-cause in-hospital mortality and complications following LPM implantation in comparison to TV-VVI. This could be related to higher co-morbidities in the LPM group. Clinical trials aimed to accurately compare these two groups should be undertaken.

Dataset Information

Outcomes of primary leadless pacemaker implantation: A systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Outcomes of primary leadless pacemaker implantation: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets