Temporary-permanent pacemakers are associated with better clinical and safety outcomes compared to balloon-tipped temporary pacemakers.
active fixation
ambulation
intensive care unit
passive fixation
safety
temporary pacemaker
Journal
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE
ISSN: 1540-8159
Titre abrégé: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7803944
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2024
02 2024
Historique:
revised:
18
12
2023
received:
03
11
2023
accepted:
21
12
2023
medline:
15
2
2024
pubmed:
19
1
2024
entrez:
19
1
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Balloon Tipped Temporary Pacemakers (BTTP) are the most used temporary pacemakers; however, they are associated with a risk of dislodgement and thromboembolism. Recently, Temporary Permanent Pacemakers (TPPM) have been increasingly used. Evidence of outcomes with TPPM compared to BTTP remains scarce. Retrospective, chart review study evaluating all patients who underwent temporary pacemaker placement between 2014 and 2022 (N = 126) in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) at a level 1 trauma center. Primary outcome of this study is to evaluate the safety profile of TPPM versus BTTP. Secondary objectives include patient ambulation and healthcare utilization in patients with temporary pacemakers. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics distribution including gender, race, and age at temporary pacemaker insertion (p > .05). Subclavian vein was the most common site of access for the TPPM cohort (89.0%) versus the femoral vein in the BTTP group (65.1%). Ambulation was only possible in the TPPM group (55.6%, p < .001). Lead dislodgement, venous thromboembolism, local hematoma, and access site infections were less frequently encountered in the TPPM group (OR = 0.23 [95% CI (0.10-0.67), p < .001]). Within the subgroup of patients with TPPM, 36.6% of the patients were monitored outside the ICU setting. There was no significant difference in the pacemaker-related adverse events among patients with TPPM based on their in-hospital setting. TPPM is associated with a more favorable safety profile compared to BTTP. They are also associated with earlier patient ambulation and reduced healthcare utilization.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Balloon Tipped Temporary Pacemakers (BTTP) are the most used temporary pacemakers; however, they are associated with a risk of dislodgement and thromboembolism. Recently, Temporary Permanent Pacemakers (TPPM) have been increasingly used. Evidence of outcomes with TPPM compared to BTTP remains scarce.
METHODS
Retrospective, chart review study evaluating all patients who underwent temporary pacemaker placement between 2014 and 2022 (N = 126) in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) at a level 1 trauma center. Primary outcome of this study is to evaluate the safety profile of TPPM versus BTTP. Secondary objectives include patient ambulation and healthcare utilization in patients with temporary pacemakers.
RESULTS
Both groups had similar baseline characteristics distribution including gender, race, and age at temporary pacemaker insertion (p > .05). Subclavian vein was the most common site of access for the TPPM cohort (89.0%) versus the femoral vein in the BTTP group (65.1%). Ambulation was only possible in the TPPM group (55.6%, p < .001). Lead dislodgement, venous thromboembolism, local hematoma, and access site infections were less frequently encountered in the TPPM group (OR = 0.23 [95% CI (0.10-0.67), p < .001]). Within the subgroup of patients with TPPM, 36.6% of the patients were monitored outside the ICU setting. There was no significant difference in the pacemaker-related adverse events among patients with TPPM based on their in-hospital setting.
CONCLUSION
TPPM is associated with a more favorable safety profile compared to BTTP. They are also associated with earlier patient ambulation and reduced healthcare utilization.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
203-210Informations de copyright
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Cheng TO. Percutaneous transfemoral venous cardiac pacing. A simple and practical method. Chest. 1971;60:73-78.
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.
Gammage MD. Temporary cardiac pacing. Heart. 2000;83:715-720.
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. Circulation. 2019;140:e333-e381.
Tjong FVY, de Ruijter UW, Beurskens NEG, Knops RE. A comprehensive scoping review on transvenous temporary pacing therapy. Neth Heart J. 2019;27:462-473.
Suarez K, Banchs JE. A review of temporary permanent pacemakers and a comparison with conventional temporary pacemakers. J Innov Card Rhythm Manag. 2019;10:3652-3661.
McCann P. A review of temporary cardiac pacing wires. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2007;7:40-49.
de Cock CC, Van Campen CM, In't Veld JA, Visser CA. Utility and safety of prolonged temporary transvenous pacing using an active-fixation lead: comparison with a conventional lead. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2003;26:1245-1248.
Metkus TS, Schulman SP, Marine JE, Eid SM. Complications and outcomes of temporary transvenous pacing: an analysis of >360,000 patients from the national inpatient sample. Chest. 2019;155:749-757.
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.
Braun MU, Rauwolf T, Bock M, et al. Percutaneous lead implantation connected to an external device in stimulation-dependent patients with systemic infection-a prospective and controlled study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006;29:875-879.
Detsky ME, Harhay MO, Bayard DF, et al. Six-month morbidity and mortality among intensive care unit patients receiving life-sustaining therapy. A prospective cohort study. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14:1562-1570.
Murphy JJ. Current practice and complications of temporary transvenous cardiac pacing. BMJ. 1996;312:1134.
Hermans G, Van Aerde N, Meersseman P, et al. Five-year mortality and morbidity impact of prolonged versus brief ICU stay: a propensity score matched cohort study. Thorax. 2019;74:1037-1045.
Kim DY, Lee MH, Lee SY, Yang BR, Kim HA. Survival rates following medical intensive care unit admission from 2003 to 2013: an observational study based on a representative population-based sample cohort of Korean patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98:e17090.
Moitra VK, Guerra C, Linde-Zwirble WT, Wunsch H. Relationship between ICU length of stay and long-term mortality for elderly ICU survivors. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:655-662.
DiSario JA. Future considerations in aspiration pneumonia in the critically ill patient: what is not known, areas for future research, and experimental methods. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26:S75-S78. discussion S79.
Mitchell BG, Ferguson JK, Anderson M, Sear J, Barnett A. Length of stay and mortality associated with healthcare-associated urinary tract infections: a multi-state model. J Hosp Infect. 2016;93:92-99.
Marik PE, Vasu T, Hirani A, Pachinburavan M. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the new millennium: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:2222-2228.
Wollschlager CM, Conrad AR, Khan FA. Common complications in critically ill patients. Dis Mon. 1988;34:221-293.
Paton F, Chambers D, Wilson P, et al. Initiatives to reduce length of stay in acute hospital settings: a rapid synthesis of evidence relating to enhanced recovery programmes. Southampton (UK), 2014.
Jackson JC, Girard TD, Gordon SM, et al. Long-term cognitive and psychological outcomes in the awakening and breathing controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182:183-191.
Orsbourn G, Lever N, Harding SA. Use of tunnelled active fixation leads allows reliable temporary pacing over prolonged periods. Intern Med J. 2008;38:735-738.
Kornberger A, Schmid E, Kalender G, et al. Bridge to recovery or permanent system implantation: an eight-year single-center experience in transvenous semipermanent pacing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013;36:1096-1103.
Arias-Fernandez P, Romero-Martin M, Gomez-Salgado J, Fernandez-Garcia D. Rehabilitation and early mobilization in the critical patient: systematic review. J Phys Ther Sci. 2018;30:1193-1201.
Lang JK, Paykel MS, Haines KJ, Hodgson CL. Clinical practice guidelines for early mobilization in the ICU: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2020;48:e1121-e1128.
Merrer J, De Jonghe B, Golliot F, et al. Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;286:700-707.
Lau BD, Murphy P, Nastasi AJ, et al. Effectiveness of ambulation to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients admitted to hospital: a systematic review. CMAJ Open. 2020;8:E832-E843.
Garcia Guerrero JJ, Fernandez de la Concha Castaneda J, Lopez Quero D, et al. Lower incidence of venous thrombosis with temporary active-fixation lead implantation in mobile patients. Europace. 2010;12:1604-1607.
Drug UFa. Class 2 Device Recall Medtronic, Temporary Pacing Lead System. 2016.
Maisel WH, Hauser RG, Hammill SC, et al. Recommendations from the Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on Lead Performance Policies and Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). Heart Rhythm. 2009;6:869-885.