Percutaneous lead implantation connected to an external device in stimulation-dependent patients with systemic infection - A prospective and controlled study

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftForschungsartikelBeigetragenBegutachtung

Beitragende

  • Martin U. Braun - , Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Kardiologie (am Herzzentrum) (Autor:in)
  • Thomas Rauwolf - , Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Kardiologie (am Herzzentrum) (Autor:in)
  • Mania Bock - , Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Kardiologie (am Herzzentrum) (Autor:in)
  • Utz Kappert - , Klinik und Poliklinik für Viszeral- Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie (Autor:in)
  • Alessandra Boscheri - , Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Kardiologie (am Herzzentrum) (Autor:in)
  • Andreas Schnabel - , Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Kardiologie (am Herzzentrum) (Autor:in)
  • Ruth H. Strasser - , Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Kardiologie (am Herzzentrum) (Autor:in)

Abstract

Background: Permanent pacemaker implantation usually is contraindicated in patients with systemic infection. The aim of the present study was to compare two different techniques of transvenous temporary pacing to bridge the infectious situation until permanent pacemaker implantation under infection-free conditions is possible. Methods and Results: Forty-nine patients with systemic infection and hemodynamic-relevant bradyarrhythmia/asystole were temporarily paced using either a conventional pacing wire/catheter (n = 26, reference group) or a permanent bipolar active pacing lead, which was placed transcutaneously in the right ventricle and connected to an external pacing generator (n = 23, external lead group). In both groups, there were no significant differences in patient characteristics. Whereas the sensing values were almost identical, the median pacing threshold was significantly higher in the reference group (1.0 V vs 0.6 V, P < 0.05). Within comparable duration of pacing (median: 8.2 vs 7.7 days), there were 24 pacing-related adverse events (including dislocation, resuscitation due to severe bradycardia, or local infection) in the reference group as compared to one event in the external lead group (P < 0.01). None of these complications resulted in cardiac death. Conclusion: Thus, transvenous pacing with active fixation is safe and associated with a significantly lower rate of pacing-related adverse events as compared to the standard technique of transvenous pacing using a passive external pacing catheter.

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Seiten (von - bis)875-879
Seitenumfang5
FachzeitschriftPACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Jahrgang29
Ausgabenummer8
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - Aug. 2006
Peer-Review-StatusJa

Externe IDs

PubMed 16923004

Schlagworte

Schlagwörter

  • Percutaneous lead implantation, Systemic infection, Temporary pacing