Temporary transvenous cardiac pacing: a survey on current practice.
Bradycardia
/ diagnosis
Cardiac Electrophysiology
/ trends
Cardiac Pacing, Artificial
/ trends
Cardiologists
/ trends
Electrophysiologic Techniques, Cardiac
/ trends
Health Care Surveys
Healthcare Disparities
/ trends
Humans
Italy
Pacemaker, Artificial
/ trends
Practice Patterns, Physicians'
/ trends
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.)
ISSN: 1558-2035
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101259752
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
26
4
2020
medline:
7
4
2021
entrez:
26
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Temporary transvenous cardiac pacing (TTCP) is a standard procedure in current practice, despite limited coverage in consensus guidelines. However, many authors reported several complications associated with TTCP, especially development of infections of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). The aim of this survey was to provide a country-wide picture of current practice regarding TTCP. Data were collected using an online survey that was administered to members of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing. We collected data from 102 physicians, working in 81 Italian hospitals from 17/21 regions. Our data evidenced that different strategies are adopted in case of acute bradycardia with a tendency to limit TTCP mainly to advanced atrioventricular block. However, some centers reported a greater use in elective procedures. TTCP is usually performed by electrophysiologists or interventional cardiologists and, differently from previous reports, mainly by a femoral approach and with nonfloating catheters. We found high inhomogeneity regarding prevention of infections and thromboembolic complications and in post-TTCP management, associated with different TTCP volumes and a strategy for management of acute bradyarrhythmias. This survey evidenced a high inhomogeneity in the approaches adopted by Italian cardiologists for TTCP. Further studies are needed to explore if these divergences are associated with different long-term outcomes, especially incidence of CIED-related infections.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Temporary transvenous cardiac pacing (TTCP) is a standard procedure in current practice, despite limited coverage in consensus guidelines. However, many authors reported several complications associated with TTCP, especially development of infections of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). The aim of this survey was to provide a country-wide picture of current practice regarding TTCP.
METHODS
METHODS
Data were collected using an online survey that was administered to members of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We collected data from 102 physicians, working in 81 Italian hospitals from 17/21 regions. Our data evidenced that different strategies are adopted in case of acute bradycardia with a tendency to limit TTCP mainly to advanced atrioventricular block. However, some centers reported a greater use in elective procedures. TTCP is usually performed by electrophysiologists or interventional cardiologists and, differently from previous reports, mainly by a femoral approach and with nonfloating catheters. We found high inhomogeneity regarding prevention of infections and thromboembolic complications and in post-TTCP management, associated with different TTCP volumes and a strategy for management of acute bradyarrhythmias.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This survey evidenced a high inhomogeneity in the approaches adopted by Italian cardiologists for TTCP. Further studies are needed to explore if these divergences are associated with different long-term outcomes, especially incidence of CIED-related infections.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32332379
doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000959
pii: 01244665-202006000-00004
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
420-427Références
Tancredi RG, McCallister BD, Mankin HT. Temporary transvenous catheter-electrode pacing of the heart. Circulation 1967; 36:598–608.
Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, et al. 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the Task Force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Eur Heart J 2013; 34:2281–2329.
Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Barrett C, et al. 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines, and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018.
Ng ACC, Lau JK, Chow V, Adikari D, Brieger D, Kritharides L. Outcomes of 4838 patients requiring temporary transvenous cardiac pacing: a statewide cohort study. Int J Cardiol 2018; 271:98–104.
Choice of route for insertion of temporary pacing wires: recommendations of the Medical Practice Committee and Council of the British Cardiac Society. Br Heart J 1993; 70:592.
Betts TR. Regional survey of temporary transvenous pacing procedures and complications. Postgrad Med J 2003; 79:463–465.
Birkhahn RH, Gaeta TJ, Tloczkowski J, et al. Emergency medicine-trained physicians are proficient in the insertion of transvenous pacemakers. Ann Emerg Med 2004; 43:469–474.
Boriani G, Diemberger I. A closer look into the complexity of our practice: outcome research for transvenous temporary cardiac pacing. Int J Cardiol 2018; 271:117–118.
Francis GS, Williams SV, Achord JL, et al. Clinical competence in insertion of a temporary transvenous ventricular pacemaker: a statement for physicians from the ACP/ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Privileges in Cardiology. Circulation 1994; 89:1913–1916.
Harrigan RA, Chan TC, Moonblatt S, Vilke GM, Ufberg JW. Temporary transvenous pacemaker placement in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 2007; 32:105–111.
Hildick-Smith DJ, Petch MC. Temporary pacing before permanent pacing should be avoided unless essential. BMJ 1998; 317:79–80.
Hynes JK, Holmes DR Jr, Harrison CE. Five-year experience with temporary pacemaker therapy in the coronary care unit. Mayo Clin Proc 1983; 58:122–126.
Jafri SM, Kruse JA. Temporary transvenous cardiac pacing. Crit Care Clin 1992; 8:713–725.
Knudsen MB, Thogersen AM, Hjortshoj SP, Riahi S. The impact of drug discontinuation in patients treated with temporary pacemaker due to atrioventricular block. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2013; 24:1255–1258.
Lang R, David D, Klein HO, et al. The use of the balloon-tipped floating catheter in temporary transvenous cardiac pacing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1981; 4:491–496.
McCann P. A review of temporary cardiac pacing wires. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J 2007; 7:40–49.
McLeod AA, Jokhi PP. Pacemaker induced ventricular fibrillation in coronary care units. BMJ 2004; 328:1249–1250.
Murphy JJ, Carver HG, Kift HJ. Temporary cardiac pacing and the physicians of tomorrow. Clin Med (Lond) 2001; 1:156.
Papasteriadis EG, Afentoglou SN, Athanasopoulos CB, Aravanis CH. The use of the subclavian vein for temporary transvenous pacemaker therapy. Angiology 1983; 34:480–483.
Sankaranarayanan R, Msairi A, Davis G. Ten years on: has competence and training in temporary transvenous cardiac pacing improved? Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2007; 68:384–387.
Sullivan BL, Bartels K, Hamilton N. Insertion and management of temporary pacemakers. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2016; 20:52–62.
Winner S, Boon N. Clinical problems with temporary pacemakers prior to permanent pacing. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1989; 23:161–163.
Cerrato E, Nombela-Franco L, Nazif TM, et al. Evaluation of current practices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the WRITTEN (WoRldwIde TAVI ExperieNce) survey. Int J Cardiol 2017; 228:640–647.
De Maria E, Diemberger I, Vassallo PL, et al. Prevention of infections in cardiovascular implantable electronic devices beyond the antibiotic agent. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2014; 15:554–564.
Diemberger I, Migliore F, Biffi M, et al. The Subtle connection between development of cardiac implantable electrical device infection and survival after complete system removal: an observational prospective multicenter study. Int J Cardiol 2018; 250:146–149.
Marik PE, Flemmer M, Harrison W. The risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with femoral venous catheters as compared to subclavian and internal jugular venous catheters: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2012; 40:2479–2485.
Agee KR, Balk RA. Central venous catheterization in the critically ill patient. Crit Care Clin 1992; 8:677–686.
Davey P, Napier A, McMillan J, Ruta D. Audit of antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical patients in three hospital trusts in Tayside. Tayside Area Clinical Audit Commitee. Health Bull (Edinb) 1999; 57:118–127.
Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: the Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur Heart J 2015; 36:3075–3128.
Mangram AJ. A brief overview of the 1999 CDC Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. J Chemother 2001; 13 ((Spec No 1)):35–39.
Rupp SM, Apfelbaum JL, Blitt C, et al. Practice guidelines for central venous access: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Central Venous Access. Anesthesiology 2012; 116:539–573.
Aggarwal RK, Connelly DT, Ray SG, Ball J, Charles RG. Early complications of permanent pacemaker implantation: no difference between dual and single chamber systems. Br Heart J 1995; 73:571–575.
Diemberger I, Biffi M, Martignani C, Boriani G. From lead management to implanted patient management: indications to lead extraction in pacemaker and cardioverter-defibrillator systems. Expert Rev Med Devices 2011; 8:235–255.
Diemberger I, Mazzotti A, Giulia MB, et al. From lead management to implanted patient management: systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years of experience in lead extraction. Expert Rev Med Devices 2013; 10:551–573.
Shariff N, Eby E, Adelstein E, et al. Health and economic outcomes associated with use of an antimicrobial envelope as a standard of care for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2015; 26:783–789.
Da Costa A, Kirkorian G, Cucherat M, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for permanent pacemaker implantation: a meta-analysis. Circulation 1998; 97:1796–1801.
Dell’Era G, Ziacchi M, Prenna E, et al. External implantable defibrillator as a bridge to reimplant after explant for infection: experience from two centers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2018; 41:532–535.
Boriani G, Maniadakis N, Auricchio A, et al. Health technology assessment in interventional electrophysiology and device therapy: a position paper of the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur Heart J 2013; 34:1869–1874.
Biffi M, Massaro G, Candelora A, et al. Less is more: can we achieve cardiac resynchronization with 2 leads only? Int J Cardiol 2017; 249:184–190.
Boriani G, Diemberger I. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in the real world: need to upgrade outcome research. Eur J Heart Fail 2018; 20:1469–1471.
Boriani G, Ziacchi M, Nesti M, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy: how did consensus guidelines from Europe and the United States evolve in the last 15years? Int J Cardiol 2018; 261:119–129.