Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Cardiovasc Revasc Med ; 42: 67-71, 2022 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35288044

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker can occur early following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) due to mechanical compression of the aortic valve annulus and associated atrio-ventricular (AV) conduction system. Data are limited regarding late PM implantation after TAVR. The purpose of this study was to determine predictors of early vs. late PM implantation post-TAVR procedure. METHODS: Baseline characteristics of patients who required PM <7 days following TAVR were compared with patients who required a PM >7 days to 1 year following TAVR using Chi-Square and multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 362 TAVR patients, of which 39 (10.4%) received a PM after TAVR. Of these 18 (4.6%) patients required PM within 7 days after TAVR, and 21 (5.8%) required PM after 7 days and up to 1 year later. Right bundle branch block (RBBB) (OR 6.721, CI 2.3-36.9, p < 0.005) was a positive predictor of early PM placement. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) (OR = 3.5, CI 1.19-10.80, p-value < 0.05) and atrial fibrillation (AF) (OR = 3.5, 1.36-9.4 p < 0.05) were predictors for late PM. Early and late PM were associated with a longer median hospital stay compared to no PM (4.9 ± 4.86 days vs. 10.1 ± 10.04 days vs. 6.10 ± 6.02 days). The incidence of heart failure was higher in the late PM group. The overall motility was not increased in early and late PM compared to no PM. CONCLUSION: Patients requiring PM implant after TAVR was 10.4%, of which 5.8% need PM >7 days post-TAVR. RBBB is a predictor for early PM. AF and LBBB were predictors for late PM.


Asunto(s)
Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica , Bloqueo Atrioventricular , Marcapaso Artificial , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/complicaciones , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Arritmias Cardíacas/terapia , Bloqueo Atrioventricular/diagnóstico , Bloqueo Atrioventricular/etiología , Bloqueo Atrioventricular/terapia , Bloqueo de Rama/diagnóstico , Bloqueo de Rama/etiología , Bloqueo de Rama/terapia , Humanos , Marcapaso Artificial/efectos adversos , Factores de Riesgo , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
J Arrhythm ; 37(5): 1205-1214, 2021 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34621418

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in cancer is most likely due to the presence of inflammatory markers. The purpose of our study is to determine the association of AF with different cancer subtypes and its impact on in-hospital outcomes. METHODS: Data were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2005 and 2015. Patients with various cancers and AF were studied. ICD-9-CM codes were utilized to verify variables. Patients were divided into three age groups: Group 1 (age < 65 years), Group 2 (age 65-80 years), and Group 3 (age > 80 years). Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson chi-square and binary logistic regression analysis to determine the association of individual cancers with AF. RESULTS: The prevalence of AF was 14.6% among total study patients (n = 46 030 380). After adjusting for confounding variables through multivariate regression analysis, AF showed significant association in Group 1 with lung cancer (odds ratio, OR = 1.92), multiple myeloma (OR = 1.59), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (OR = 1.55), respiratory cancer (OR = 1.55), prostate cancer (OR = 1.20), leukemia (OR = 1.12), and Hodgkin's lymphoma (OR = 1.03). In Group 2, the association of AF with multiple myeloma (1.21), lung cancer (OR = 1.15), Hodgkin lymphoma (OR = 1.15), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (OR = 1.12), respiratory cancer (OR = 1.08), prostate cancer (OR = 1.06), leukemia (OR = 1.14), and colon cancer (OR = 1.01) were significant. In Group 3, AF showed significant association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (OR = 1.06), prostate (OR = 1.03), leukemia (OR = 1.03), Hodgkin's lymphoma (OR = 1.02), multiple myeloma (OR = 1.01), colon cancer (OR = 1.01), and breast cancer (OR = 1.01). The highest mortality was found in lung cancer in age <80 and prostate cancer in age >80. CONCLUSION: In patients age <80 years, AF has significant association with lung cancer and multiple myeloma, whereas in patients age >80 years, it has significant association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and prostate cancer. In patients age <80 years, increased mortality was seen in AF with lung cancer and in patients age >80 years, increased mortality was seen in those with AF and prostate cancer. TWITTER ABSTRACT: In age <80, lung cancer and multiple myeloma have a strong association with AF while thyroid and pancreatic cancers have no association with AF at any age. In age greater than 80, NHL and prostate cancer have a significant association with AF.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...