Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
Front Cardiovasc Med ; 8: 781335, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35097002

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the clinical performance of single-chamber leadless pacemaker (LLPM) in patients without atrial fibrillation (AF) as pacing indication. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of patients who underwent single chamber LLPM implantation at three tertiary referral centers and to compare the safety and effectiveness of the single-chamber LLPM among patients with or without AF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All the consecutive patients who underwent LLPM implantation at three referral centers were analyzed. The indications to LLPM in a real-world setting were described. The study population was divided into two groups according to AF as pacing indication. We assessed the procedure-related complications; moreover, we compared syncope, cardiac hospitalization, pacemaker syndrome, and all-cause death recurrence during the follow-up between patients with and without AF as pacing indication. RESULTS: A total of 140 consecutive patients (mean age, 76.7 ± 11.24 years, men 64.3%) were included in the study. The indication to implantation of LLPM was permanent AF with slow ventricular response (n: 67; 47.8%), sinus node dysfunction (n: 25; 17.8%), third atrioventricular block (AVB) (n: 20; 14.2%), second-degree AVB (n: 18; 12.8%), and first degree AVB (n: 10; 7.1%). A total of 7 patients (5%) experienced perioperative complications with no differences between the AF vs. non-AF groups. During a mean follow-up of 606.5 ± 265.9 days, 10 patients (7.7%) died and 7 patients (5.4%) were reported for cardiac hospitalization; 5 patients (3.8%) experienced syncope; no patients showed pacemaker syndrome. No significant differences in the clinical events between the groups were shown. The Kaplan-Meier analysis for the combined endpoints did not show significant differences between the AF and non-AF groups [hazard ratio (HR): 0.94, 95% CI: 0.41-2.16; p = 0.88]. CONCLUSION: Our real-world data suggest that LLPM may be considered a safe and reasonable treatment in patients without AF in need of pacing. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results.

2.
Eur Heart J Digit Health ; 2(1): 171-174, 2021 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37155653

RESUMEN

Aims: Following coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, the Italian government adopted strict rules of lockdown and social distancing. The aim of our study was to assess the admission rate for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) replacement procedures in Campania, the 3rd-most-populous region of Italy, during COVID-19 lockdown. Methods and results: Data were sourced from 16 referral hospitals in Campania from 10 March to 4 May 2020 (lockdown period) and during the same period in 2019. We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients hospitalized for CIEDs replacement procedures during the two observational periods. The number and type of CIEDs replacement procedures among patients followed by remote monitoring (RM), the admission rate, and the type of hospital admission between the two observational periods were compared. In total, 270 consecutive patients were hospitalized for CIEDs replacement procedures over the two observation periods. Overall CIEDs replacement procedures showed a reduction rate of 41.2% during COVID-19 lockdown. Patients were equally distributed for sex (P = 0.581), and both age [median 76 years (IQR: 68-83) vs. 79 years (IQR: 68-83); P = 0.497]. Cardiac implantable electronic devices replacement procedures in patients followed by RM significantly increased (IR: +211%; P < 0.001), mainly driven by the remarkable increase rate trend of both PM (IR: +475%; P < 0.001) and implantable cardiac defibrillator replacement procedures (IR: +67%, P = 0.01), during COVID-19 lockdown compared with 2019 timeframe. Conclusions: We showed a significant increase trend rate of replacement procedures among CIEDs patients followed by RM, suggesting the hypothesis of its increased use to closely monitoring and to optimize the hospital admission time during COVID-19 lockdown.

3.
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) ; 21(3): 250-258, 2020 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32004245

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment in patients with heart failure and prolonged QRS duration. A biventricular device is implanted to achieve faster activation and more synchronous contraction of the ventricles. Despite the convincing effect of CRT, 30-40% of patients do not respond. We decided to investigate the role of multipoint pacing (MPP) in a selected group of patients with right ventricle (RV)-to-left ventricle (LV) intervals less than 80 ms that do not respond to traditional CRT. METHODS: We will enrol 248 patients in this patient-blinded, observational, clinical study aiming to investigate if MPP could decrease LV end-systolic volume (ESV) in patients with RV-to-LV interval less than 80 ms. MPP will be activated ON at implant in patients with RV-to-LV delay less than 80 ms and OFF in RV-to-LV at least 80 ms. At follow-up the activation of MPP will be related to CRT response. The primary study endpoint will be the responder rate at 6 months, defined as a decrease in LV ejection fraction, LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) at least 15% from baseline. Secondary outcomes include 12 months relative percentage reduction in LVESV and a combined clinical outcome measure of response to CRT defined as the patient being alive, no hospitalization due to heart failure, and experiencing an improvement in New York Heart Association functional class (Composite-Score). CONCLUSION: Reducing the nonresponder rate continues to be an important goal for CRT.If an increase in reverse remodelling can be achieved by MPP, this study supports the conduct of larger trials investigating the role of MPP on clinical outcomes in selected patients treated, right now, only with traditional CRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02713308. Registered on 18 March 2016.


Asunto(s)
Dispositivos de Terapia de Resincronización Cardíaca , Terapia de Resincronización Cardíaca , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Proyectos de Investigación , Volumen Sistólico , Función Ventricular Izquierda , Función Ventricular Derecha , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/fisiopatología , Humanos , Italia , Estudios Prospectivos , Recuperación de la Función , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Remodelación Ventricular
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA