ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The use of temporary cardiac pacing is frequent in critical care units for severe bradycardia or electrical storm, but may be associated with frequent and potentially severe complications, especially when indwelling for several days. In some cases, transient indication or ongoing contraindication for a permanent pacemaker justifies prolonged temporary pacing. In that case, the implantation of an active-fixation lead connected to an externalized pacemaker represents a valuable option to increase safety and patient comfort. Yet, evidence remains scarce. We aimed to describe the population receiving prolonged temporary cardiac pacing (PTCP) and their outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively included all consecutive patients, admitted to our hospital from 2016 to 2021, who underwent PTCP. We collected in-hospital and six-month outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-six patients (median age of 73, 63% male) were included, and twenty-nine (63%) had prior heart disease. Indications for PTCP were found: seventeen (37%) potentially reversible high-grade conduction disorders, fourteen (30%) indications for permanent pacemaker but ongoing infection, seven (15%) cardiac implantable electronic device infections requiring extraction in pacing-dependent patients, seven (15%) severe vagal hyperreactivity in prolonged critical care hospitalizations, and one (2%) recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia requiring overdrive pacing. The median PTCP duration was nine (5-13) days. Ten (22%) patients exhibited at least one complication during hospitalization. Twenty-six (56.5%) patients required definite device implantation (twenty-five pacemakers and one cardioverter-defibrillator) and twenty (43.5%) did not (fifteen PTCP device removal for recovery and five deaths under PTCP). At six months, two (5%) deaths and two (5%) new infections of a definite implanted device occurred, all in patients with initial active infection. CONCLUSION: The use of prolonged temporary cardiac pacing, with an active -fixation lead connected to an externalized pacemaker, is possible and reasonable; this would allow for the possible recovery or resolution of contraindication for definite device implantation.
