RESUMO
Resumen Objetivo: Determinar seguridad y eficacia del marcapasos temporal mediante cable de fijación activa vía yugular y/o subclavia. Métodos: Se analizaron pacientes desde 2017 a 2021 postextracción de marcapasos dependientes de estimulación. Resultados: Se colocó estimulación temporal en 25 pacientes con una edad media de 68 ± 16 años. La media de duración de la estimulación temporal fue cinco días. No se registró mortalidad asociada a la estimulación temporal, sin embargo en un paciente se presentó desplazamiento de cable y falla de captura a los cuatro días de la colocación. Conclusiones: La estimulación temporal mediante cable de fijación activa es segura y eficaz.
Abstract Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of temporary pacing with an active fixation lead placed trough the internal jugular vein and/or subclavian vein. Methods: We analyzed a consecutive series of 25 out of 73 patients that had a pacemaker extraction and were pacing dependent requiring temporary pacing with an active fixation lead until the new pacemaker implant, from 2017 to 2021. Results: After extraction 25 patients age 68 years ±16 years, required temporary pacing, the media for temporary pacing was 5 days. There were no mortality associated to temporary stimulation. Only one patient (4%) had a complication 4 days after the implant with capture fail due to a microdislogement requiring reintervention. Conclusion: Temporary stimulation through active fixation pacemaker lead it is safe and effective.
RESUMO
Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of temporary pacing with an active fixation lead placed trough the internal jugular vein and/or subclavian vein. Methods: We analyzed a consecutive series of 25 out of 73 patients that had a pacemaker extraction and were pacing dependent requiring temporary pacing with an active fixation lead until the new pacemaker implant, from 2017 to 2021. Results: After extraction 25 patients age 68 years ±16 years, required temporary pacing, the media for temporary pacing was 5 days. There were no mortality associated to temporary stimulation. Only one patient (4%) had a complication 4 days after the implant with capture fail due to a microdislogement requiring reintervention. Conclusion. Conclusion: Temporary stimulation through active fixation pacemaker lead it is safe and effective.
Objetivo: Determinar seguridad y eficacia del marcapasos temporal mediante cable de fijación activa vía yugular y/o subclavia. Métodos: Se analizaron pacientes desde 2017 a 2021 postextracción de marcapasos dependientes de estimulación. Resultados: Se colocó estimulación temporal en 25 pacientes con una edad media de 68 ± 16 años. La media de duración de la estimulación temporal fue cinco días. No se registró mortalidad asociada a la estimulación temporal, sin embargo en un paciente se presentó desplazamiento de cable y falla de captura a los cuatro días de la colocación. Conclusiones: La estimulación temporal mediante cable de fijación activa es segura y eficaz.
Assuntos
Marca-Passo Artificial , Humanos , Idoso , Estimulação Cardíaca ArtificialRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In-hospital delays in permanent cardiac pacemaker (PPM) implantation are common and may result in in-hospital infection among patients waiting for PPM implantation (pre-PPM-HI). This study investigated the predictors and prognostic impact of these events. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 905 consecutive patients (68.2 ± 16.0 years; 54% males) who underwent PPM implantation. Clinical characteristics, pre-PPM-HI and 30-day mortality were recorded and a risk score for pre-PPM-HI was generated using multivariable logistic regression coefficients. RESULTS: Eigthy-nine patients (10% of the sample) developed pre-PPM-HI. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified urinary catheter use, complete atrioventricular block, implantation of temporary pacemaker and diabetes mellitus as independent predictors of pre-PPM-HI. The generated score (range 0-10.1) played a better role in predicting pre-PPM-HI than individual factors, yielding an area under the curve [95%CI] of 0.754 [0.705-0.803]. Patients with score ≥ 7.5 had 18-fold greater risk of developing pre-PPM-HI than those with score < 2.5. Furthermore, multivariable Cox-regression analysis showed that patients who developed pre-PPM-HI had greater 30-day mortality after PPM implantation (hazard ratio [95%CI] = 2.90 [1.18-7.16], p = 0.021) compared with their counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that pre-PPM-HI is an independent predictor of early mortality after PPM implantation. In addition, a clinical score developed from simple clinical variables accurately identified patients at high risk of pre-PPM-HI. In scenarios where delays in PPM implantation are unavoidable, such as reference hospitals with high demand, the use of this tool can potentially help in the hierarchy of patients and in the reduction of this adverse event.