Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Transfemoral access when superior venous approach is not feasible equals overall success of permanent pacemaker implantation. Ten-year series.
García Guerrero, Juan J; Fernández de la Concha Castañeda, Joaquín; Doblado Calatrava, Manuel; Redondo Méndez, Ángel; Lázaro Medrano, Manuel; Merchán Herrera, Antonio.
Afiliación
  • García Guerrero JJ; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Infanta Cristina, Badajoz, Spain.
  • Fernández de la Concha Castañeda J; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Infanta Cristina, Badajoz, Spain.
  • Doblado Calatrava M; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Infanta Cristina, Badajoz, Spain.
  • Redondo Méndez Á; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Infanta Cristina, Badajoz, Spain.
  • Lázaro Medrano M; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Infanta Cristina, Badajoz, Spain.
  • Merchán Herrera A; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Infanta Cristina, Badajoz, Spain.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol ; 40(6): 638-643, 2017 Jun.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28349586
BACKGROUND: When permanent pacemaker implantation is not possible or advisable via superior venous access (i.e., axillary or subclavian veins), safe and feasible surgical alternatives are required. The femoral approach is relatively unknown and seldom studied. This single-center study analyzed 10-year outcomes of a femoral implantation approach. METHODS: Data about the implantation procedure (indication, approach, lead and pacemaker models, complications), patient characteristics (age, sex, medications, comorbidities), and follow-up were analyzed for all permanent pacemaker implantations using the femoral approach between June 2001 and June 2011. RESULTS: A permanent pacemaker was implanted with the femoral approach in 50 patients (mean age, 76 years [range: 45-96], 31 [61%] men). The most frequent indication was atrioventricular block, associated with sinus rhythm in 30 patients and with atrial fibrillation in eight patients. Overall, 20 patients (40%) were treated with oral anticoagulants postimplantation. Mean implantation time was 64 minutes (range: 20-210) and mean fluoroscopy time was 6.7 minutes (range: 0.2-50). Minimum follow-up window was 1 year (June 2012), with a mean of 50 months [range: 1-113]). No deaths, septic episodes, or severe complications were associated with the procedure, acute or long-term. Follow-up data were available for 46 patients, of who 21 (46%) died during follow-up (mean age, 87 years [range: 73-101]). No cause of death was associated with the femoral technique. CONCLUSION: Permanent pacemaker implantation through femoral access is not difficult for an experienced implant surgeon. Outcomes were comparable to systems implanted by superior venous approach, and no severe complications were observed at 10-year follow-up.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Marcapaso Artificial / Arritmias Cardíacas / Complicaciones Posoperatorias / Cateterismo Cardíaco / Implantación de Prótesis / Vena Femoral Tipo de estudio: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: España Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Marcapaso Artificial / Arritmias Cardíacas / Complicaciones Posoperatorias / Cateterismo Cardíaco / Implantación de Prótesis / Vena Femoral Tipo de estudio: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: España Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos