Multi‐Center, Community‐Based Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Registry: Population, Device Utilization, and Outcomes

Gupta, Nigel; Kiley, Mary Lou; Anthony, Faith; Young, Charlie; Brar, Somjot; Kwaku, Kevin F.

doi:10.1161/jaha.115.002798

Cited by 39 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies do not distinguish between complications occurring in‐hospital and those occurring following discharge. As we did not examine in‐hospital complications, this may be the reason that the frequency of some complications such as tamponade and pneumothorax was lower than that found in other studies . This may also be the reason that we did not find a difference in rehospitalizations for adjustment and reoperation procedures between single‐ and dual‐chamber recipients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…However, comparison of our results with other studies is challenged by that the reported risks of complications following pacemaker insertions differ according to study cohort characteristics, outcome measures, and length of follow‐up. In one registry‐based study with more than 33 000 initial and replacement pacemaker procedures in patients with an average age of 75 years, 1% of patients experienced tamponade, hematoma, or pneumothorax and 0.6% experienced an infection within 30 days of pacemaker implantation . Another study, where pacemaker implantation complications were defined as an event that required surgical intervention, reported that in 3% of patients with an average age of 72 years complications occurred within 3 months of implantation .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rehospitalizations for complications and mortality following pacemaker implantation: A retrospective cohort study in an older population

Gillam

Pratt

Inacio

et al. 2018

Clinical Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction A large number of older people receive pacemakers each year but broad population‐based studies that describe complications following pacemaker implantation in this population are lacking. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Australian Government Department of Veterans' Affairs database. The cohort consisted of patients who received a pacemaker from 2005 to 2014. The outcomes were subsequent rehospitalizations for infections, procedure‐related complications, thromboembolism, cardiovascular events (heart failure, myocardial infarction, and atrial fibrillation), and reoperation of pacemaker, and mortality. Results There were 10 883 pacemakers recipients, the median age was 86 years (interquartile range 83‐89), 61% were males, and 74% received a dual‐chamber pacemaker. Within 90 days postdischarge, rehospitalizations were occasioned by pacemaker infection in 0.5%, device‐related complications in 1.5%, cerebral infarction in 0.7%, and heart failure in 6% of single‐chamber pacemaker recipients. In dual‐chamber pacemaker recipients rehospitalizations were occasioned by pacemaker infection in 0.4%, septicemia in 0.4%, device‐related complications in 1.2%, cerebral infarction in 0.3%, and heart failure in 3%. Rehospitalizations for pacemaker adjustment occurred in 1.5% of patients. The 90‐day postdischarge mortality was 5% and 3% in patients with single‐ and dual‐chamber pacemaker, respectively. Conclusion Rehospitalizations for infection, procedure‐related complications, or thromboembolism occurred in 1% to 2% of patients within 90 days postdischarge, while 10% of single chamber and 7% of dual‐chamber recipients experienced a rehospitalization for a cardiovascular event.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rehospitalizations for complications and mortality following pacemaker implantation: A retrospective cohort study in an older population

Gillam

Pratt

Inacio

et al. 2018

Clinical Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rates of S-ICD implantation–related infections have been reported in the range of 1.7%–4.1% 3, 4. In comparison, rates of TV-ICD infection between 0.6% and 1.7% over variable follow-up have been reported 5, 6, 7, 8. In the absence of prospective head-to-head study data, comparisons of S-ICD and TV-ICD infection rates using prospective and retrospective cohort data are limited by differences in implantation techniques, use of antibiotic prophylaxis, patient characteristics, and follow-up time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systemic infection due to subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: Importance of early recognition and treatment of device pocket-related complications

Looser

Saleh

Thomas

et al. 2017

HeartRhythm Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Most pacemakers are implanted below the collarbone and the leads are inserted through the subclavian vein . The main complications associated with lead implantation are cardiac perforation, lead dislodgement, and lead malfunction . Currently, there are two main methods to deliver the pacing lead from the subclavian vein to the right ventricle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the catheter delivery system and the stylet delivery system for ventricular lead placement in pacemaker implantation—The CATS delivery system randomized controlled trial

Yamagata

Ishibashi

Nakajima

et al. 2019

Journal of Arrhythmia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Right ventricular lead placement is one of the fundamental procedures during pacemaker implantation through the subclavian vein. Currently, there are two techniques to deliver the lead to the right ventricle: the catheter and stylet delivery systems. Surgeons, especially trainees in the early stage of training, are known to face difficulty while delivering the lead to the right ventricle. The objective of this study is to investigate and compare the two techniques of lead delivery by trainees in patients who are scheduled to undergo pacemaker implantation. Methods This is a prospective, single‐center, randomized controlled clinical trial. One‐hundred patients who were scheduled to undergo pacemaker implantation with a right ventricular lead will be randomized such that the pacemaker can be implanted via either the catheter delivery system or the stylet delivery system at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint is the total number of attempts needed to place the lead in the ideal position. Secondary endpoints are the efficacy and safety of the implantation procedure. All implantation procedures will be performed by trainees under the supervision of expert cardiologists. Results The results of this study are currently under investigation. Conclusion This will be the first clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of the catheter delivery system and the stylet delivery system during the implantation of the ventricular lead in pacemaker implantation. Our findings are expected to improve the lead implantation procedure by providing information about which delivery system to choose in which situation.

show abstract

Multi‐Center, Community‐Based Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Registry: Population, Device Utilization, and Outcomes

Abstract: Background--The purpose of this study is to describe key elements, clinical outcomes, and potential uses of the Kaiser Permanente-Cardiac Device Registry.

Cited by 39 publications

References 16 publications

Rehospitalizations for complications and mortality following pacemaker implantation: A retrospective cohort study in an older population

Rehospitalizations for complications and mortality following pacemaker implantation: A retrospective cohort study in an older population

Systemic infection due to subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: Importance of early recognition and treatment of device pocket-related complications

Comparing the catheter delivery system and the stylet delivery system for ventricular lead placement in pacemaker implantation—The CATS delivery system randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About