RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Permanent pacemaker implantation is increasing exponentially to treat atrio-ventricular block and symptomatic bradyarrhythmia. Despite being a minor surgery, immediate complications such as pocket infection, pocket hematoma, pneumothorax, hemopericardium, and lead displacement do occur. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried from 2016 to 2018 to identify patients with pacemakers using ICD-10 procedure code. The Chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The sample size consisted of 443,460 patients with a pacemaker, 26% were <70 years (male 57%, mean age of (60.6±9.7) yr, Caucasian 70%) and 74% were ≥70 years (male 50%, mean age of (81.4±5.9) yr, Caucasian 79%). Upon comparison of rates in the young vs elderly: mortality (1.6% vs 1.5%; P<0.01), obesity (26% vs 13%; P<0.001), coronary artery disease (40% vs 49%; P<0.001), HTN (74% vs 87%; P<0.01), anemia (4% vs 5%; P<0.01), atrial fibrillation (34% vs 49%; P<0.01), peripheral artery disease (1.7% vs 3%; P<0.01), CHF (31% vs 39%; P<0.001), diabetes (31% vs 27.4%; P<0.01), vascular complications (1.1% vs 1.2%; P<0.01), pocket hematoma (0.5% vs 0.8%; P<0.01), AKI (16% vs 21%; P<0.01), hemopericardium (0.1% vs 0.1%; P = 0.1), hemothorax (0.3% vs 0.2%; P<0.01), cardiac tamponade (0.4% vs 0.5%; P<0.01), pericardiocentesis (0.4% vs 0.4%; P<0.01), cardiogenic shock (4% vs 2.3%; P<0.01), respiratory complications (1.9% vs 0.9%; P<0.01), mechanical ventilation (5.1% vs 2.9%; P<0.01); post-op bleed (0.5% vs 0.3%; P<0.01), need for transfusion (4.8% vs 3.8%; P<0.01), severe sepsis (0.6% vs 0.5%; P<0.01 ), septic shock (2% vs 1%; P<0.01), bacteraemia (0.8% vs 0.4%; P<0.01), lead dislodgement (1.4% vs 1.1%; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed that the overall complication rates were lower in the elderly despite higher co-morbidities. This aligns with previous studies which showed lower rates in the elderly. Hence providers should not hesitate to provide guideline driven pacemaker placement in the elderly especially in patients with good life expectancy.
RESUMO
The relationship between racial disparities in occupational risk and lung cancer diagnosis is not well defined. We examined occupational exposure to asbestos, silica, and other workplace chemicals, fumes, or dusts as reported in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Descriptive analyses and multivariate logistic regression models were performed. Among the NLST study cohort, 3.9% were diagnosed with lung cancer. African-Americans had a higher rate of lung cancer diagnosis than White individuals (4.3% vs. 3.9%). About 28% reported at least one occupational exposure, including 6.5% exposed to silica and 4.7% to asbestos. African-Americans reported occupational exposure more frequently than White participants, including exposures to asbestos and silica. In a multivariate model, the interactions of all measures of occupational exposures and smoking status were significant. Current smokers with occupational exposures had higher odds of lung cancer diagnosis (aOR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.76-2.30 for any exposure as well as higher odds after silica (aOR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.89-2.91) or asbestos (aOR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.52-2.56) exposure compared to former smokers without any exposures. African-Americans had higher odds of lung cancer diagnosis than White individuals (aOR = 1.24 to 1.25, 95% CI = 1.01-1.54). Our findings indicate that we need more effective public health prevention programs, especially for minorities who may have disproportionately greater occupational exposures due to socioeconomic constructs and barriers. Interventions may include education about occupational risks and lung cancer screening or instituting workplace policies for smoke-free environments with tobacco cessation support.