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

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
Publication year range
1.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol ; 37(1): 4-10, 2014 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24215291

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine if the rate of lead-related complications was increased with the Medtronic CapSureFix MRI™ SureScan™ 5086 MRI pacing lead (5086; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) compared to the previous generation of Medtronic CapSureFix Novus™ 5076 pacing lead (5076). BACKGROUND: The 5086 lead is a newly introduced active-fixation pacemaker lead designed to be used conditionally in a magnetic resonance (MR) scanner. This lead has specific design changes compared to the previous generation of 5076 pacing leads. METHODS: This study was a retrospective case control study of 65 consecutive patients implanted with two 5086 leads compared to 92 consecutive control patients implanted with two 5076 leads over a 14-month period at a high-volume tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: Pericarditis, pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, or death within 30 days of implant were seen in eight patients from the 5086 cohort and two from the 5076 cohort (odds ratio 6.3, 95% confidence interval 1.3-30.8, P = 0.02). Lead dislodgement occurred in four of the 5086 patients and in none of the 5076 patients (P < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In a high-volume center, the incidence of pericarditis, cardiac perforation, tamponade, death, and lead dislodgement was significantly higher with the MR-conditional Medtronic 5086 lead when compared to the previous generation Medtronic 5076 lead.


Asunto(s)
Electrodos Implantados/efectos adversos , Migración de Cuerpo Extraño/etiología , Lesiones Cardíacas/etiología , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética/instrumentación , Marcapaso Artificial/efectos adversos , Heridas Penetrantes/etiología , Anciano , Falla de Equipo , Seguridad de Equipos , Femenino , Migración de Cuerpo Extraño/prevención & control , Lesiones Cardíacas/prevención & control , Humanos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética/efectos adversos , Masculino , Pericarditis/etiología , Pericarditis/prevención & control , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/etiología , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/prevención & control , Estudios Retrospectivos , Tasa de Supervivencia , Resultado del Tratamiento , Heridas Penetrantes/prevención & control
2.
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther ; 6(1): 3-9, 2016 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26885486

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy of peri-procedural anticoagulation in patients undergoing permanent cardiac device implantation is controversial. Our objective was to compare the major bleeding and thromboembolic complications in patients managed with uninterrupted warfarin (UW) vs. interrupted dabigatran (ID) during permanent pacemaker (PPM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) implantation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all eligible patients from July 2011 through January 2012 was performed. UW was defined as patients who had maintained a therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) on the day of the procedure. ID was defined as stopping dabigatran ≥12 hours prior to the procedure and then resuming after implantation. Major bleeding events included hemothorax, hemopericardium, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleed, epistaxis, or pocket hematoma requiring surgical intervention. Thromboembolic complications included stroke, transient ischemic attack, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or arterial embolism. RESULTS: Of the 133 patients (73.4±11.0 years; 91 males) in the study, 86 received UW and 47 received ID. One (1.2%) patient in the UW group sustained hemopericardium perioperatively and died. In comparison, the ID patients had no complications. As compared to the ID group, the UW group had a higher median CHADS2 score (2 vs. 3, P=0.04) and incidence of Grade 1 pocket hematoma (0% vs. 7%, P=0.09). Neither group developed any thromboembolic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Major bleeding rates were similar among UW and ID groups. Perioperative ID appears to be a safe anticoagulation strategy for patients undergoing PPM or ICD implantation.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
Detalles de la búsqueda