[Ambulatory pacemaker surgery]. / Implantación de marcapasos definitivos en programa de cirugía ambulatoria.

The chronic cardiac stimulation is know since 1958, pacemaker implant was considered a difficult procedure that was performed through cardiovascular surgery and the patient required several in hospital days. On the grounds of new surgical techniques and development of new materials for pacemakers, as well as the rise of Ambulatory Surgery and its application in pacemaker implants, the hospital stay and consequently, costs have decreased significantly. In 1986, Zegelman reported 583 patients subjected to ambulatory pacemaker surgery without mortality. The purpose of this report it to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ambulatory pacemaker surgery. One hundred seventy seven patients from an ambulatory program and 95 from a traditional program were included. Hospitalization time was 15.7 +/- 15.1 hours in the first group and 238 +/- 188 hours for the second, prevalence of complications was 2.2% in the 272 patients. Complications for both groups were similar and were solved, without mortality. We conclude that the ambulatory pacemaker surgery is effective and safe for patients and is cheaper for hospitals. The success of this program depends on the number of implants in each hospital and the operator's experience.

Implantación de marcapasos definitivos en programa de cirugía ambulatoria / Ambulatory pacemaker surgery

Desde 1958 se conoce lo que llamamos estimulación cardíaca crónica, inicialmente ésta se consideraba un procedimiento quirúrgico complejo para el cirujano cardiovascular y exigía hospitalización por varios días. Con el desarrollo de nuevas técnicas y de materiales, así como el surgimiento de la cirugía ambulatoria y su aplicación en la implantación de marcapasos, se abatió la estancia hospitalaria y consecuentemente los costos de este procedimiento. Desde 1986 Zegelman describe una serie de 583 casos en los cuales se colocó en forma ambulatoria un marcapaso definitivo, sin reportarse mortalidad. El objetivo del presente estudio fue valorar la eficacia y seguridad de la colocación de marcapasos definitivos en el Programa de Cirugía Ambulatoria. Se incluyeron 177 pacientes en estancia corta y 95 en estancia tradicional; la estancia hospitalaria fue 15.7±15.1 horas para el primer grupo y 238 ±188 horas para el segundo y se presentaron complicaciones en el 2.2% de los 272 pacientes. Las complicaciones fueron similares en ambos grupos y se resolvieron favorablemente, además no hubo mortalidad. Concluimos que la colocación de marcapasos definitivos en Programa de Cirugía Ambulatoria representa una opción segura para el paciente y con menor costo para la institución. Que el éxito de este programa depende del número de implantes de un centro hospitalario y de la experiencia del operador.

The chronic cardiac stimulation is know since 1958, pacemaker implant was considered a difficult procedure that was performed through cardiovascular surgery and the patient required several in hospital days. On the grounds of new surgical techniques and development of new materials for pacemakers, as well as the rise of Ambulatory Surgery and its application in pacemaker implants, the hospital stay and consequently, costs have decreased significantly. In 1986, Zegelman reported 583 patients subjected to ambulatory pacemaker surgery without mortality. The purpose of this report it to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ambulatory pacemaker surgery. One hundred seventy seven patients from an ambulatory program and 95 from a traditional program were included. Hospitalization time was 15.7±15.1 hours in the first group and 238± 188 hours for the second, prevalence of complications was 2.2% in the 272 patients. Complications for both groups were similar and were solved, without mortality. We conclude that the ambulatory pacemaker surgery is effective and safe for patients and is cheaper for hospitals. The success of this program depends on the number of implants in each hospital and the operator's experience.

[Alternatives to chronic cardiac stimulation in patients with mechanical tricuspid prosthesis and atrioventricular block]. / Alternativas de estimulación cardiaca crónica en pacientes con prótesis mecánica tricuspídea y bloqueo atrioventricular.

One of the complications of tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) is the complete heart block (CHB). In these patients an epicardial permanent pacemaker is frequently used but its insertion is another major operation and higher thresholds are needed. Two patients are reported, both women, with rheumatic heart disease and TVR who required a permanent pacemaker because they developed CHB. The first patient underwent mitral valve replacement with a disc valve seventeen years before and TVR recently. A single chamber pacemaker was implanted. Left ventricular pacing was achieved through the great cardiac vein. The acute and chronic pacing thresholds were adequate. The second patient underwent tricuspid and mitral replacement with a Starr-Edwards (SE) valve. Eighteen years later this patient had atrial fibrillation with slow ventricular response and heart failure. The pacemaker lead had to be inserted across the tricuspid SE valve because ventricle pacing through the coronary veins was unsuccessful. The endocardial pacing resulted in mild tricuspid regurgitation and has continued the same way for four years. To conclude, ventricle pacing through the coronary veins is safe, produces excellent results and fewer complications. On the other hand, ventricle pacing across a prosthetic tricuspid valve remains questionable because of possible damage to the prosthesis itself leading to valve insufficiency and because of damage to the pacing lead.