Impact of bedrest on cardiovascular events and complications associated with temporary pacemakers in patients waiting for permanent pacemaker implantation.
bed rest
cardiovascular event
complication associated with temporary pacemaker
permanent pacemaker implantation
temporary pacemaker
Journal
Journal of arrhythmia
ISSN: 1880-4276
Titre abrégé: J Arrhythm
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101263026
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
12
10
2020
revised:
04
03
2021
accepted:
16
03
2021
entrez:
18
6
2021
pubmed:
19
6
2021
medline:
19
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patients with a temporary pacemaker (TPM) for bradycardias are required to maintain bedrest until permanent pacemakers (PPMs) are implanted because of the development of Adams-Stokes syndrome, worsening heart failure, or complications associated with TPMs is anticipated. However, bedrest may be detrimental in patients because it leads to disuse syndrome. This study examined whether bedrest could decrease the incidence of cardiovascular events or complications associated with TPMs in patients waiting for PPM implantation. We conducted a retrospective cohort study on 88 patients who had emergency hospitalization for the treatment of bradycardias, and a TPM was inserted during the waiting period before PPM implantation. We divided patients into two groups according to whether they underwent bedrest (Bedrest Group) or not (Ambulation Group) during the period that patients were supported with TPM. We evaluated whether bedrest was a predictor of adverse events using a logistic regression analysis. Adverse events occurred in 31 patients (35%). In the univariate analysis, there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the Bedrest and Ambulation Groups (39% vs. 29%). In the logistic regression analysis, bedrest was not a predictor of adverse events (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-3.68, In patients with TPMs for bradyarrhythmias during the waiting period for PPM implantations, bedrest might not prevent adverse events, such as cardiovascular events and complications associated with TPMs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patients with a temporary pacemaker (TPM) for bradycardias are required to maintain bedrest until permanent pacemakers (PPMs) are implanted because of the development of Adams-Stokes syndrome, worsening heart failure, or complications associated with TPMs is anticipated. However, bedrest may be detrimental in patients because it leads to disuse syndrome. This study examined whether bedrest could decrease the incidence of cardiovascular events or complications associated with TPMs in patients waiting for PPM implantation.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective cohort study on 88 patients who had emergency hospitalization for the treatment of bradycardias, and a TPM was inserted during the waiting period before PPM implantation. We divided patients into two groups according to whether they underwent bedrest (Bedrest Group) or not (Ambulation Group) during the period that patients were supported with TPM. We evaluated whether bedrest was a predictor of adverse events using a logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Adverse events occurred in 31 patients (35%). In the univariate analysis, there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the Bedrest and Ambulation Groups (39% vs. 29%). In the logistic regression analysis, bedrest was not a predictor of adverse events (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-3.68,
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with TPMs for bradyarrhythmias during the waiting period for PPM implantations, bedrest might not prevent adverse events, such as cardiovascular events and complications associated with TPMs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34141020
doi: 10.1002/joa3.12534
pii: JOA312534
pmc: PMC8207420
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
669-675Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Arrhythmia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of the Japanese Heart Rhythm Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest for this article.
Références
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013 Sep 1;6(5):582-90
pubmed: 24002030
Circ J. 2013;77(1):249-74
pubmed: 23165786
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Feb;62(2):253-60
pubmed: 24428349
J Electrocardiol. 2017 Sep - Oct;50(5):686-689
pubmed: 28623015
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1970 Aug;51(8):449-62
pubmed: 5448109
Nutr Clin Pract. 2017 Feb;32(1):110-115
pubmed: 30865346
Neth Heart J. 2019 Oct;27(10):462-473
pubmed: 31392624
J Emerg Med. 2007 Jan;32(1):105-11
pubmed: 17239740
Circulation. 1968 Nov;38(5 Suppl):VII1-78
pubmed: 5696236
N Engl J Med. 2001 Oct 4;345(14):1014-21
pubmed: 11586953
Resuscitation. 2007 Apr;73(1):96-102
pubmed: 17212976
Intensive Care Med. 2003 Apr;29(4):530-8
pubmed: 12664219
Eur Heart J. 2018 Jun 1;39(21):1883-1948
pubmed: 29562304
Circulation. 2001 Sep 18;104(12):1350-7
pubmed: 11560849
Crit Care Med. 2009 Oct;37(10 Suppl):S422-8
pubmed: 20046130
Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2016 Mar;20(1):52-62
pubmed: 26134176
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2017 Oct 1;123(4):790-799
pubmed: 28705999
Clin Geriatr Med. 2017 Feb;33(1):17-26
pubmed: 27886695
Circ J. 2019 Sep 25;83(10):2084-2184
pubmed: 31511439