Complications after Single versus Dual Chamber Pacemaker Implantation

Mueller, Xavier M.; Sadeghi, H; Kappenberger, L

doi:10.1111/j.1540-8159.1990.tb02095.x

Cited by 48 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Though recent studies have shown complication rates were no higher for dual than for single chamber systems,4 12 our study suggests that late complications are more often observed with dual chamber systems, in keeping with a previous study 3. We speculate that subsequent studies may show that late complications are most commonly observed after elective unit replacement of dual chamber systems.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Late complications following permanent pacemaker implantation or elective unit replacement

Harcombe

Newell

Ludman

et al. 1998

Heart

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-To determine the rate of late complications following first implantation or elective unit replacement of a permanent pacemaker system. Design-Analysis of pacemaker data and complications prospectively acquired on a computerised database. Complications were studied over an 11 year period from January 1984 to December 1994. Setting-Tertiary referral cardiothoracic centre. Patients-Records of 2621 patients were analysed retrospectively. Main outcome measures-Complications requiring repeat procedures occurring more than six weeks after pacemaker implantation or elective unit replacement. Results-The overall rate of late complications was significantly lower after first implantation of a permanent pacemaker (34 cases, complication rate 1.4%, 95% confidence interval 0.9% to 1.9%) than after elective unit replacement (16 cases, complication rate 6.5% (3.3% to 9.7%). There were 20 cases of erosion, 18 infections, five electrode problems, and seven miscellaneous problems. Complications were more common with inexperienced operators (18.9% (6.0% to 31.8%)) than with experienced operators (0.9% (0.3% to 1.5%)). Conclusions-The incidence of late complications following pacemaker implantation is low and compares favourably with early complication rates. The majority are caused by erosion and infection. Patients who have undergone elective unit replacement are at particular risk. (Heart 1998;80:240-244)

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…The infection rate in our study (0.55% after first implant) compares with 0.5% in Hill’s study,8 0.69% in a report by Matsuura et al ,9 and 0.9% in Mueller’s study 12. In a large study by Frame et al concerning 5089 patients over a 20 year period the infection rate was 1.06% 13.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Late complications following permanent pacemaker implantation or elective unit replacement

Harcombe

Newell

Ludman

et al. 1998

Heart

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Atrial lead displacement occurring within six weeks of upgrade was seen in eight patients (18%), compared with 11 of 286 patients who underwent dual chamber implants at this centre between 1987 and 1993 (3.8%),16 and with a standard atrial displacement rate of 1%17 to 5% 7. The reason for the high incidence of atrial displacement at upgrade is not immediately apparent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Ventricular pacemaker upgrade: experience, complications and recommendations

Hildick‐Smith

Löwe

Newell

et al. 1998

Heart

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-To assess outcomes of pacemaker upgrade from single chamber ventricular to dual chamber. Design-Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing the procedure. (17), "opportunistic"-that is, at elective generator replacement (8), heart failure (7), non-specific breathlessness/fatigue (7), and neurally mediated syncope (3). Mean (SD) upgrade procedure duration (82.9 (32.6) minutes) significantly exceeded mean VVI implantation duration (42.9 (13.3) minutes) and mean DDD implantation duration (56.6 (22.7) minutes) (both p < 0.01). Complications included pneumothorax (1), ventricular arrhythmia requiring cardioversion (2), protracted procedure (10), atrial lead repositioning within six weeks (8), haematoma evacuation (1), superficial infection (1), and admission to hospital with chest pain (1); 20 patients (45%) suVered one or more complications including four of the eight who underwent opportunistic upgrade. Conclusions-Pacemaker upgrade takes longer and has a higher complication rate than either single or dual chamber pacemaker implantation. This suggests that the procedure should be performed by an experienced operator, and should be undertaken only if a firm indication exists. Patients with atrial activity should not be oVered single chamber ventricular systems in the belief that the unit can be upgraded later if necessary at minimal risk. (Heart 1998;79:383-387)

show abstract

“…Mueller et al 19 have recently challenged the highest indices of complication attributed to DDD,C pacemakers by showing results similar to those of the ventricular systems (VVI,C).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Atrioventricular pacemaker. Incidence and causes of reprogramming in long-term follow-up

Fº¹,

Melo²,

Nishioka³

et al. 2001

Arq. Bras. Cardiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective -To assess the incidence of problems requiring reprogramming of atrioventricular pacemakers in a long-term follow-up, and also the causes for this procedure. December '99, 657 patients were retrospectively studied, An actuarial curve for the event reprogramming of the stimulation mode was drawn. Methods -During the period from May '98 to Results -The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 178 months (mean = 81 months

show abstract

Complications after Single versus Dual Chamber Pacemaker Implantation

Cited by 48 publications

References 17 publications

Late complications following permanent pacemaker implantation or elective unit replacement

Late complications following permanent pacemaker implantation or elective unit replacement

Ventricular pacemaker upgrade: experience, complications and recommendations

Atrioventricular pacemaker. Incidence and causes of reprogramming in long-term follow-up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About