Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis and stenosis after implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators; A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Obstruction of the access vein following cardiac pacemaker and defibrillator implantation is a common complication. However, the exact incidence and contributing risk factors are unknown. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence and analyze the contribution of each risk factor. METHODS: 57 consecutive patients candidate for their first transvenous pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), or cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation were enrolled. After implantation, venography of the ipsilateral peripheral arm was performed. Patients underwent their second venography after the follow-up period of 3 to 6 months. RESULTS: 42 patients (13 females, mean age 59.71 ± 12.33) completed the study. The followup venography showed significant venous obstruction (more than 50%) in 9 (21%) patients, but in none of the individuals, venography revealed total occlusion of the veins. Patients with obstruction had more leads in their veins (2.56 ± 0.53 vs 1.58 ± 0.71, P = 0.001). Venous obstruction was significantly more prevalent in patients with implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy device compared with an ICD or pacemaker (p = 0. 01). Age, gender, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ischemic heart disease and antiplatelet consumption did not reveal any other contribution to the risk of thrombosis. In multivariate analysis, total lead number was a positive predictor for venous occlusion (P = 0.015, OR:19.2, and CI: 1.7-207.1). CONCLUSION: Venous obstruction is relatively frequent after pacemaker or ICD implantation. This study also shows that pacemaker and ICD leads have a similar risk for lead-related venous obstruction. However, patients with multiple leads are associated with an increased risk.

Evaluation the frequency of factor V Leiden mutation in pregnant women with preeclampsia syndrome in an Iranian population.

BACKGROUND: Role of genetic factors in etiology of preeclampsia is not confirmed yet. OBJECTIVE: Gene defect frequency varies in different geographic areas as well as ethnic groups. In this study, the role of factor V Leiden mutation in the pathogenesis of preeclampsia syndrome among the pregnant population of northern shore of Persian Gulf in Iran, were considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between Jan. 2008 and Dec. 2009, in a nested case control study, pregnant women with preeclampsia (N=198) as cases and healthy (N=201) as controls were enrolled in the study. DNA were extracted from 10 CC peripheral blood and analyzed for presence of factor V Leiden mutation in these subjects. The maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnancy according to the distribution of factor V Leiden were also compared among cases. RESULTS: In total, 17(8.6%) of cases and 2(1%) of controls showed the factor V Leiden mutation. The incidence of factor V Leiden was typically higher in preeclamptic women than control group (OR: 9.34 %95 CI: 2.12-41.01). There was no difference in incidence rate of preterm delivery< 37 weeks (OR: 1.23 %95 CI: 0.38-4.02), very early preterm delivery<32 weeks (OR: 1.00 %95 CI: 0.12-8.46), intra uterine fetal growth restriction (IUGR) (OR: 1.32 %95 CI: 0.15-11.30 ),and the rate of cesarean section (OR: 0.88 %95 CI: 0.29-2.62 ) among cases based on the prevalence of factor V Leiden mutation. CONCLUSION: The pregnant women with factor V Leiden mutation are prone for preeclampsia syndrome during pregnancy, but this risk factor was not correlated to pregnancy complications in the studied women.