Perioperative complications after pacemaker implantation: higher complication rates with subclavian vein puncture than with cephalic vein cutdown.

PURPOSE: The cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) and the subclavian puncture (SP) is the most common access for pacemaker implantation. The purpose of this study was to compare the peri-/postoperative complications of these approaches. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the quality assurance data of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia was performed to evaluate the peri-/postoperative complications of first pacemaker implantation according to the venous access. The primary endpoint was defined as the occurrence of one of the following: asystole, ventricular fibrillation, pneumothorax, hemothorax, pericardial effusion, pocket hematoma, lead dislocation, lead dysfunction, postoperative wound infection or other complication requiring intervention. Descriptive analysis was done via absolute, relative frequencies and Odds Ratio. Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of the both study groups. RESULTS: From 139,176 pacemaker implantations from 2010 to 2014, 15,483 cases were excluded due to other/double access. The median age was 78 years and the access used was CVC for 75,251 cases (60.8%) and SP for 48,442 cases (39.2%). The implanted devices were mainly dual-chamber pacemakers (73.9% in the CVC group and 78.4% in the SP group), followed by single-chamber pacemakers VVI (24.9% and 19.9% in the CVC and SP group respectively). There were significantly fewer peri/postoperative complications in the CVC group compared to the SP group (2.49% vs. 3.64%, p = 0.0001, OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.38-1.57). CONCLUSIONS: CVC as venous access for pacemaker implantation has significantly fewer peri/postoperative complications than SP and appears to be an advantageous technique.

[Perioprocedural mortality after ICD implantation]. / Peripoperative Mortalität nach ICD-Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) represent an established treatment in preventing sudden cardiac death in patients with indications for primary or secondary prophylaxis. As for all complex surgical procedures there remains a risk for the occurrence of complications including death also for ICD implantation. The aim of the present study was to analyze the procedure-related mortality in patients after ICD implantation using the data from the obligatory quality assurance program in North-Rhine/Westphalia. METHODS: Data of all 18,625 patients from the quality assurance datasets who underwent ICD implantation in the years 2010-2012 were analyzed. RESULTS: During the in-hospital stay 118 patients (0.6%) died after ICD implantation. Patients > 80 years old had a higher mortality (1.9% vs. 0.5% in patients < 80 years old, p < 0.001) as well as women (0.95% vs. 0.54% in men, p = 0.004) and patients with higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (0.3% for NYHA II, 0.7% for NYHA III, 3.4% for NYHA IV, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The presence of diabetes mellitus (23% of the collective) did not influence the perioperative mortality, whereas renal failure requiring dialysis showed a significantly increased mortality (p < 0.001 compared to patients with creatinine ≤ 1.5 mg/dl and p = 0.002 for patients with creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl not requiring dialysis). Patients with indications for ICD secondary prophylaxis had a significantly higher mortality (1.2% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001), which increased from 0.6% to 3.7% (p < 0.001) with the occurrence of complications. CONCLUSION: The procedure-related mortality after ICD implantation is increased in patients over 80 years of age, higher NYHA class, patients requiring dialysis, in secondary prevention indications and after the occurrence of perioperative complications.