Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol ; 12(2): e006878, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30707036

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The 12-lead ECG is considered the gold standard to differentiate between selective (S), nonselective (NS) His bundle pacing (HBP), and right ventricular septal capture in routine clinical practice. We sought to assess the utility of device EGM recordings as a tool to identify the type of HBP morphology. METHODS: One hundred forty-eight consecutive patients underwent HBP with a 3830 Select Secure lead (Medtronic, Inc) at 3 centers between October 2016 and October 2017. The near field V-EGM morphology (NF EGM), near field V-EGM time to peak (NFTime to peak), and far-field EGM QRS duration (QRSd) were recorded while pacing the His lead with simultaneous 12-lead ECG rhythm strips. RESULTS: Indications for HBP were sinus node dysfunction, atrioventricular conduction disease, and cardiac resynchronization therapy in 68 (46%), 56 (38%), and 24 (16%) patients, respectively. Baseline QRSd was 108±38 ms with QRSd >120 ms in 57 (39%) patients (27 right bundle branch block, 18 left bundle branch block, and 12 intraventricular conduction delay). S-HBP was noted in 54 (36%) patients. A positive NFEGM and NFTime to peak >40 ms were highly sensitive (94% and 93%, respectively) and specific (90% and 94%) for S-HBP irrespective of baseline QRSd. All 3 parameters (+NFEGM, NFTime to peak >40 ms, and far-field EGM QRSd <120 ms) had high negative predictive value (97%, 95%, and 92%). A novel device-based algorithm for S-HBP was proposed. EGM transitions correlated with ECG transitions during threshold testing and can help accurately differentiate between S-HBP, NS-HBP, and right ventricular septal pacing with a cumulative positive predictive value of 91% (positive predictive value =100% in patients with baseline QRSd <120 ms). CONCLUSIONS: We propose a novel and simple criteria for accurate differentiation between S-HBP, NS-HBP, and right ventricular septal capture morphologies by careful analysis of device EGMs alone. This study paves the way for future studies to assess autocapture algorithms for devices with HBP.


Assuntos
Potenciais de Ação , Arritmias Cardíacas/terapia , Fascículo Atrioventricular/fisiopatologia , Estimulação Cardíaca Artificial/métodos , Técnicas Eletrofisiológicas Cardíacas , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Algoritmos , Arritmias Cardíacas/diagnóstico , Arritmias Cardíacas/fisiopatologia , Eletrocardiografia , Feminino , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/fisiopatologia , Frequência Cardíaca , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Estudos Prospectivos , Processamento de Sinais Assistido por Computador , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos , Função Ventricular Direita
2.
Heart Rhythm ; 15(5): 708-715, 2018 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29317316

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding true estimates of individual complications contributing to readmissions after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of 30-day readmission in patients admitted for CIED implantation. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of patients who underwent CIED implantation in 2014, identified from the National Readmission Database. Readmission was defined as a subsequent hospital admission within 30 days after the discharge day of index admission. If patients had more than 1 readmission within 30 days, only the first readmission was included. RESULTS: Our final cohort consisted of 70,223 cases, 61,738 (88%) in the no-readmission group and 8485 patients (12%) in the readmission group. Female gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.14; P = .001), atrial fibrillation/flutter (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.17-1.29, P <.001), acute renal failure (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.56-1.74; P <.001), coronary artery disease (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.14; P = .002), length of stay (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.51-1.89; P <.001), device placement on the day of admission (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.80-0.95, P = .001), and fourth quartile of hospital procedure volume (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84-0.99; P = .03; first quartile of hospital procedure volume as reference) were independent predictors of 30-day readmissions. The 30-day readmission resulted in additional median charges of $30,692 per patient. Device-related complications were seen in 10.7% of readmitted patients. The most common complications were mechanical (2.8%) and infectious (2.6%). CONCLUSION: Several patient and hospital-related factors were identified to be independent predictors of 30-day readmission, accounting for increased health care cost.


Assuntos
Arritmias Cardíacas/terapia , Desfibriladores Implantáveis , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Marca-Passo Artificial , Readmissão do Paciente/tendências , Sistema de Registros , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Arritmias Cardíacas/economia , Arritmias Cardíacas/epidemiologia , Bases de Dados Factuais , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Readmissão do Paciente/economia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Fatores de Tempo , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA