Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
JACC Clin Electrophysiol ; 6(3): 304-310, 2020 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32192681

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the performance of Temporary Pacing via an Externalized Active-Fixation (TPEAF) lead. BACKGROUND: The incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infections is increasing, which necessitates the need for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Pacemaker-dependent patients require temporary pacing during the guideline-recommended waiting period before reimplantation. Data regarding safety and efficacy of TPEAF leads are very limited. METHODS: We evaluated patients implanted with TPEAF leads post-TLE at our center between April 2004 and December 2017. RESULTS: TPEAF leads were placed in 158 patients. The mean age was 74 ± 11 years. The median duration of the temporary lead was 6 days (range 1 to 29). There were 4 procedural complications (2.5% incidence): 1 patient had cardiac arrest from hyperkalemia, 2 developed cardiac tamponade, and 1 had profuse bleeding from the entry point of the leads. There were 13 complications post-implantation (8.2% incidence): 8 lead dislodgments, 1 elevated pacing threshold, 2 vegetations on the temporary lead, 1 pneumothorax, and 1 loss of capture due to the generator "safety switch." All dislodgements occurred within 24 h, except 1 on day 3. Sixteen patients died during the hospital stay: 10 due to septic shock, 2 due to hyperkalemic cardiac arrest, 3 due to ventricular tachycardia, and 1 due to a massive cerebrovascular accident. CONCLUSIONS: The use of TPEAF leads is safe and efficacious in pacemaker-dependent patients post-TLE. Dislodgement can occur within the first 24 h. The presence of persistent fever and positive blood cultures should raise concern for vegetation on the temporary lead.


Subject(s)
Cardiac Pacing, Artificial , Defibrillators, Implantable , Pacemaker, Artificial , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cardiac Pacing, Artificial/adverse effects , Cardiac Pacing, Artificial/methods , Cardiac Pacing, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Defibrillators, Implantable/adverse effects , Defibrillators, Implantable/statistics & numerical data , Device Removal/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pacemaker, Artificial/adverse effects , Pacemaker, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Outcome
3.
Clin Pract ; 8(2): 1054, 2018 Mar 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30069298

ABSTRACT

Amyloidosis is a complex group of disorders that can involve many organs and cause their dysfunction. Cardiac involvement indicates worse prognosis and influences treatment strategies. Cardiac amyloidosis is an under-diagnosed entity and high index of clinical suspicion and careful interpretation of basic diagnostic tools such as electrocardiogram and echocardiography is needed for early detection. Congestive heart failure due to restrictive pattern and/or conduction system abnormality, in absence of coronary artery disease should raise suspicion. We present a case of transthyretin related cardiac amyloidosis and discuss the key clinical and diagnostic findings along with review of existing literature regarding its management and outcomes.

4.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol ; 45(2): 219-23, 2016 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26768264

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) provides potential benefits in patients on hemodialysis (HD) by reducing the risk of blood stream infection and preserving vascular access sites. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of S-ICD in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on HD. METHODS: All consecutive patients implanted with S-ICD between October 2012 and April 2015 at our high-volume center were included in this retrospective, single-center study. Baseline demographics, procedural details, and short- as well as long-term outcomes were compared between patients on HD and not on HD. RESULTS: A total of 86 S-ICDs were implanted at our institution during the study period. Eighteen (21%) patients were on HD at the time of implant. HD patients were more likely to be implanted for secondary prevention. There was no statistically significant difference in procedural complications between the two groups. HD patients had a longer duration hospital stay after implant (3.6 ± 5.14 vs. 1.69 ± 2.29 days, p = 0.021). During a mean follow-up of 205 ± 208 days in the HD cohort and 242 ± 238 days in the non-HD cohort (p = 0.268), there was no device or blood stream infection in the HD group, compared with five device infections in the non-HD group. The incidence of inappropriate shocks was similar in both groups. All appropriate shocks were successful in terminating ventricular tachyarrhythmias in both groups. Patients on hemodialysis had worse inpatient as well as long-term mortality after S-ICD implant, compared with non-HD patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of S-ICD in patients on HD. Despite representing a sicker patient population, HD patients implanted with S-ICD had similar procedural outcomes and inappropriate shocks. There was no device or blood stream-related infection in HD patients. All appropriate shocks for ventricular arrhythmias in HD patients were successful.


Subject(s)
Defibrillators, Implantable/statistics & numerical data , Heart Failure/mortality , Heart Failure/prevention & control , Kidney Failure, Chronic/mortality , Kidney Failure, Chronic/therapy , Renal Dialysis/mortality , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Pennsylvania/epidemiology , Prevalence , Prosthesis Implantation/mortality , Prosthesis Implantation/statistics & numerical data , Renal Dialysis/statistics & numerical data , Renal Insufficiency , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Survival Rate , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...