ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Most outpatient follow-ups after pacemaker implantation do not involve changes in the device settings. Moreover, the need for pacemaker reprogramming declines with time after implantation. Currently, data on the need for changes in pacemaker set-up after replacement owing to battery depletion are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the rates of pacemaker reprogramming in this patient group. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using the files of 217 patients who had undergone pacemaker replacement between 2002 and 2005. The data of 1,407 outpatient follow-up visits between 2002 and 2015 were analyzed. Scheduled and unscheduled visits were marked as visits with "action" or visits "without action", depending on whether pacemaker programming was or was not performed, respectively. RESULTS: Pacemaker programming was performed in only 53 (4%) of the 1,234 scheduled visits and in 44 (25%) of 173 unscheduled visits. Thus, only 97 (7%) of 1,407 visits involved changes in device settings. Of these visits, 446 occurred in the first year after device replacement. The rate of unscheduled visits in the first year was higher (17%) than during the overall period (12%), but the rate of visits involving action was the same: 6% (26 of 446, first year) compared with 7% (97 of 1,407). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of outpatient visits after pacemaker replacement do not involve subsequent device reprogramming during follow-up. This suggests the potential benefit of remote follow-up for these patients.
Subject(s)
Arrhythmias, Cardiac , Pacemaker, Artificial , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/therapy , Equipment Failure , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Time FactorsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Treatment of persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation is not successfully managed by methods of catheter ablation or pharmacotherapy. Hybrid ablation (i.e. combination of minimally invasive surgical ablation, followed by electrophysiological assessment and subsequent endocardial catheter ablation to complete the entire intended procedure) presents an ever more used and very promising treatment method. METHOD: Patients underwent thoracoscopic ablation of pulmonary veins and posterior wall of the left atrium (the box-lesion) with use of the COBRA Fusion catheter; thoracoscopic occlusion of the left atrial appendage using the AtriClip system was also done in later patients. After 23 months, electrophysiological assessment and catheter ablation followed. In this article we summarize a strategy of the surgical part of the hybrid procedure performed in our centre. We describe the surgery itself (including possible periprocedural complications) and we also present our short-term results, especially with respect to subsequent electrophysiological findings. RESULTS: Data of the first 51 patients were analyzed. The first 25 patients underwent unilateral ablation; the mean time of surgery was 102 min. Subsequent 26 patients underwent the bilateral procedure with the mean surgery time of 160 min. Serious complications included 1 stroke, 1 phrenic nerve palsy and 2 surgical re-explorations for bleeding. After 1 month, 65% of patients showed sinus rhythm. The box-lesion was found complete during electrophysiological assessment in 38% of patients and after catheter ablation, 96% of patients were discharged in sinus rhythm. CONCLUSION: The surgical part of the hybrid procedure with use of the minimally invasive approach and the COBRA Fusion catheter is a well-feasible method with a low number of periprocedural complications. For electrophysiologists, it provides a very good basis for successful completion of the hybrid ablation.Key words: atrial fibrillation hybrid ablation - thoracoscopy catheter ablation electrophysiology assessment.
