Results of cardiac pacing: About 188 patients

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Jun 25, 2013
Download
pdf
Vol. 91 No. 6 (2013): Issue Jun 2013

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Wissem Sdiri
Amel Marouf
Dorra Mbarek
Hédi Ben Slima
Aida Mokaddem
Youssef Ben Ameur
Mohamed Rachid Boujnah

Abstract

Background: Indications for permanent pacing are currently well codified. This treatment may, however, present complications
Aim: To report the results of cardiac pacing and to identify predictive factors of pacing’s complication.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 188 consecutive patients admitted to the cardiology department of Mongi Slim university hospital in La Marsa between January 2005 and June 2011 and implanted with a single or dual chamber pacemaker.
Results: In our study, we had 92 men and 96 women (sexratio= 0.95). The mean age was 70.21 ± 13 years. The indication for cardiac pacing was a high degree heart block in 74.46% of cases and a sick sinus syndrome in 15.95% of cases. The degeneration conduction tissue was the main etiology (72.34% of patients). Success implantation was obtained in 98.4%of cases. The main operative complication was the pneumothorax in 3 patients (1.59% of cases). At Long term, cumulative survival rate was 78.95%. Only operating time affects significantly the rate of early complications (p<0.001). Late complications were related to the valvular heart disease (p = 0.007), the ischemic etiology (p = 0.05), the oral antivitamine K treatment (p = 0.04) and the occurrence of early complication (p = 0.002).
Conclusion: Our hospital, which is considered as a small Center of cardiac pacing (less than 80 procedures/year) had a low complication rate as well as big centers.

Keywords:

Atrio-ventricular heart block, sick sinus syndrome, Pacemaker, complications

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

References

  1. Coma Samartín R, Sancho-Tello de Carranza MJ, Ruiz Mateas F, Leal Del Ojo González J, Fidalgo Andrés ML. Spanish Pacemaker Registry. Seventh official report of the Spanish Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiac Pacing. Rev Esp Cardiol 2010; 63:1452-67.
  2. B Bouraoui H, Trimech B, Chouchene S et al. Permanent cardiac pacing: about 234 patients. Tunis Med 2011; 89:604-9.
  3. Slimane ML, Ben Ameur Y. The dual chamber cardiac pacing. A multicenter study a propos of 353 pacemakers. Tunis Med 2002; 80:624-27.
  4. Armaganijan LV, Toff WD, Nielsen JC et al. Are elderly patients at increased risk of complications following pacemaker implantation? A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2012; 35:131-34.
  5. Kerr CR, Connolly SJ, Abdollah H et al. Canadian Trial of Physiological Pacing: Effects of physiological pacing during long-term follow-up. Circulation 2004; 109:357-62.
  6. Toff WD, Camm AJ, Skehan JD; United Kingdom Pacing and Cardiovascular Events Trial Investigators. Single-chamber versus dual-chamber pacing for high-grade atrioventricular block. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:145-55.
  7. Andersen HR, Nielsen JC, Thomsen PE et al. Long-term follow-up of patients from a randomised trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing for sick-sinus syndrome. Lancet 1997; 350:1210-16.
  8. Tuppin P, Neumann A, Marijon E et al. Implantation and patient profiles for pacemakers and cardioverter-defibrillators in France (2008-2009). Arch Cardiovascular Dis 2011; 104:332-42.
  9. Bayata S, Yeşil M, Arikan E et al. Retrospective analysis of 1650 permanent pacemaker implantations experience over two different consecutive time periods in a single cardiology clinic. Anadolu Kardiyol Derg 2010; 10:130-34.
  10. Kühne M, Schaer B, Kaufmann C et al. A randomized trial comparing two different approaches of pacemaker selection. Europace 2007; 9:1185-90.
  11. Proclemer A, Ghidina M, Gregori D et al. Trend of the main clinical characteristics and pacing modality in patients treated by pacemaker: data from the Italian Pacemaker Registry for the quinquennium 2003-07. Europace 2010; 12:202-9.
  12. Tibi T, Moceri P, Martin Teule C et al. Registre local des implantations de stimulateurs cardiaques: propositions permettant de diminuer le risque infectieux. Ann Cardiol Angeiol 2006; 55:339-41.
  13. Lamas GA, Lee K, Sweeney M et al. The mode selection trial (MOST) in sinus node dysfunction: design, rationale, and baseline characteristics of the first 1000 patients. Am Heart J 2000; 140:541-51.
  14. Connolly SJ, Kerr CR, Gent M et al. Effects of physiologic pacing versus ventricular pacing on the risk of stroke and death due to cardiovascular causes. Canadian Trial of Physiologic Pacing Investigators. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1385-91.
  15. Udo EO, Zuithoff NPA, van Hemel NM et al. Incidence and predictors of short- and long-term complications in pacemaker therapy: The FOLLOWPACE study. Heart Rhythm 2012; 9:728- 35.
  16. Cengiz M, Okutucu S, Ascioglu S et al. Permanent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator infections: seven years of diagnostic and therapeutic experience of a single center. Clin Cardiol 2010; 33:406-11.
  17. Catanchin A, Murdock CJ, Athan E. Pacemaker Infections: A 10- Year Experience. Heart, Lung Circ 2007; 16:434-39.