Registro español de marcapasos. XIX informe oficial de la Asociación del Ritmo Cardiaco de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología (2021) / Spanish pacemaker registry. 19th official report of the Heart Rhythm Association of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (2021)

Introducción y objetivos En el presente documento se recoge la actividad de estimulación cardiaca realizada en España en 2021: cifras de dispositivos, factores demográficos y clínicos, características del material implantado y datos de monitorización a distancia. Métodos Los datos se obtienen a través de la Tarjeta Europea del Paciente Portador de Marcapasos, la plataforma online CardioDispositivos.es, las bases de datos propias de los centros y los datos facilitados por los fabricantes. Resultados Se registraron 17.360 procedimientos de 95 hospitales, lo que supone el 43% de la actividad realizada. Crecieron en un 40,5% los procedimientos incluidos en CardiodioDispositivos.es. La tasa de marcapasos convencionales y resincronizadores de baja energía fue de 822 y 31 unidades/millón respectivamente y se implantaron 652 marcapasos sin cables. La media de edad al implante es avanzada (78,9 años) y el bloqueo auriculoventricular, la alteración electrocardiográfica más frecuente. Predomina el modo de estimulación bicameral, aunque para el 18,5% de los pacientes en ritmo sinusal es monocameral, fundamentalmente pacientes de más edad. Se incluyeron en programa de monitorización a distancia el 28,5% de los marcapasos y el 56,2% de los resincronizadores de baja energía. Conclusiones En 2021 aumentó el número de marcapasos convencionales en un 8,3% y el de resincronizadores, un 8,9%, a pesar del descenso de la resincronización de baja energía, probablemente atribuible al desarrollo de la estimulación del sistema de conducción. Aumentaron los marcapasos sin cables en un 25%. Continúa la expansión de la monitorización a distancia como modo fundamental de seguimiento (AU)

Introduction and objectives This document includes cardiac pacing activity performed in Spain in 2021: figures for implanted devices, demographic and clinical factors, characteristics of the implanted material, and remote monitoring data. Methods The European Pacemaker Patient Card, the CardioDispositivos.es online platform, the centers’ own databases and the data provided by the supplier companies are used as sources of information. Results 17.360 procedures were registered from 95 hospitals, which represents 43% of the activity. The implantation rates of conventional and resynchronization pacemakers were 822 and 31 units per million population, respectively. 652 leadless pacemakers were implanted. The mean age of implantation is high (78.8 years), and atrioventricular block is the most frequent electrocardiographic abnormality. Dual-chamber pacing mode predominated, nonetheless single-chamber pacing was performed in 19% of patients in sinus rhythm, mainly in the elderly. 28.5% of implanted conventional pacemakers and 56,2% of low-energy resynchronization pacemakers were included in the remote monitoring program. Conclusions In 2021 the number of conventional pacemakers increased by 8.3% and resynchronizers by 18.9%, despite the decrease in low-energy resynchronization, probably attributable to the development of physiological pacing. Leadless pacemakers increased by 25%. The expansion of remote monitoring continued, consolidating as a fundamental follow-up method (AU)

Effect of circulatory assistance on premature death and long-term prognosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing urgent heart transplantation (HT) have a poorer prognosis and more long-term complications. The objective of this study was to compare the preoperative course in patients undergoing urgent HT according to the need for preoperative intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 102 consecutive patients including 23 patients with IABP who underwent urgent HT between January 2000 and September 2006. We excluded patients who received combination transplants, those who underwent repeat HT, and pediatric patients who underwent HT. The statistical methods used were the t test for quantitative variables and the chi(2) test for qualitative variables. A logistic regression model was constructed to assess the possible relationship between IABP and other variables on premature death within 30 days after HT. RESULTS: Mean (SD) patient-age was 50 (10) years. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the IABP and the non-IAPB groups. The IABP patient group had higher rates of acute graft failure (45.5% vs 35.4%; P = .46) and premature death (18.8% vs 14.8%; P = .67) and shorter long-term survival (40.6 [34.9] vs 54.5 [43.7] mo; P = .30). Multivariate analysis demonstrated no association between the need for IABP and increased frequency of premature death. CONCLUSIONS: Use of IABP is not associated with premature or late death. We recommend use of IABP in patients with acute decompensated heart failure to stabilize them before HT.

Effect of hypertension, diabetes, and smoking on development of renal dysfunction after heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Renal dysfunction is a serious problem after heart transplantation (HT). The objective of this study was to determine the cardiovascular risk factors associated with medium- to long-term dysfunction after HT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 247 consecutive patients who underwent HT between January 2000 and September 2006 who survived for at least 6 months. We excluded patients receiving combination transplants, those undergoing repeat HT, and pediatric patients undergoing HT. Mean (SD) follow-up was 72 (42) months. We defined renal dysfunction as serum creatinine concentration greater than 1.4 mg/dL during follow-up. Patients were considered to be smokers if they had smoked during the six months before HT, to have hypertension if they required drugs for blood pressure control, and to have diabetes if they required insulin therapy. Statistical tests included the t test and the chi(2) tests. We performed Cox regression analysis using significant or nearly significant values in the univariate analysis. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of the patients who underwent HT was 52 (10) years, and 217 (87.9%) were men. Renal dysfunction was detected during follow-up in 135 (54.5%) patients. The significant variables at univariate analysis were smoking (61.4% vs. 43.2%; P = .01) and previous renal dysfunction (94.1% vs 52.7%; P = .001). Nearly significant variables were the presence of hypertension before HT (63.8% vs 51.1%; P = .09) and after HT (58.2% vs 44.8%; P = .082). At multivariate analysis, pre-HT smoking and previous renal dysfunction were significant correlates (P = .04 and P = .01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Renal dysfunction is common after HT. In our analysis, the best predictors were pre-HT dysfunction and smoking. Less important factors were advanced age and post-HT hypertension.

Influence of traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the recipient on the development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy after heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is the leading cause of death heart transplant (HT) recipients after the first year. We assessed the influence of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) in HT recipients on the development of CAV after 1 year of follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2005, we studied 72 patients who received a HT and survived for at least 1 years. All patients underwent coronary arteriography and intravascular ultrasonography at 1 year after HT. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy was defined as intimal proliferation of 0.5 mm or more. The analyzed CVRFs were age, sex, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking. We also considered the heart disease that was the reason for HT. The statistical tests used in the univariate analysis were the t and chi(2) tests. Logistic regression was performed with the variables obtained at univariate analysis. RESULTS: Mean (SD) recipient age at HT was 51 (9) years. Eighty patients (90.5%) were men. Dyslipidemia was significantly associated with a greater incidence of CAV at 1 year (68.3% vs 41.9%; P = .03). Ischemia, as opposed to all other causes, was also significantly associated with CAV (69.4% vs 44.4%; P = .03). Older age, hypertension, smoking history, and high body mass index were associated with a higher incidence of CAV, albeit without statistical significance. At multivariate analysis, dyslipidemia was the most significant CVRF (P = .045) for the development of CAV. CONCLUSIONS: Recipient dyslipidemia is a risk factor for the development of CAV in HT. The remaining traditional CVRFs are more weakly associated with CAV. After HT close monitoring of recipients with pretransplantation CVRFs is essential for early detection of CAV.