Yangzhi Zhou, Saranda Haxha, Andrim Halili, Berit T Philbert, Olav W Nielsen, Ahmad Sajadieh, Lars Koeber, Gunnar H Gislason, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Casper N Bang
{"title":"Risk factors associated with clinically relevant pericardial effusion after primary cardiac implantable electronic device implantation.","authors":"Yangzhi Zhou, Saranda Haxha, Andrim Halili, Berit T Philbert, Olav W Nielsen, Ahmad Sajadieh, Lars Koeber, Gunnar H Gislason, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Casper N Bang","doi":"10.1111/jce.16442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pericardial effusion, a known complication to implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), may cause life-threatening cardiac tamponade. Limited knowledge is available about risk factors for clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion. The aim is to identify the patient- and procedure-related risk factors associated with clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A nationwide observational cohort study based on data on 55 121 patients from the Danish Pacemaker Register between 2000 and 2018. We defined a clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion related to the implantation if it occurred within 90 days after the primary CIED-procedure. Prespecified risk factors were analysed by multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the association with pericardial effusion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 115 (0.21%) patients diagnosed with clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion, with a median age of 75 years and 38.3% were females. Of these, 80.9% lead to a subsequent pericardiocentesis procedure. In adjusted logistic regression analysis, an increased risk of clinically relevant pericardial effusion was associated with female sex (OR:1.49 [95%CI: 1.03-2.16]), heart failure (OR:1.54 [95%CI: 1.06-2.23]), previous cardiac surgery (OR:1.63 [95%CI: 1.05-2.55]), CRT-device (OR:2.05 [95%CI: 1.23-3.41]), tertiary-centres (OR:1.8 [95%CI: 1.18-2.73]), increased procedural volume per year (>1000) (OR:1.85 [95%CI: 1.03-3.30]), indication of device-implantation (atrioventricular block) (OR:2.37 [95CI: 1.45-3.87]), and increasing number of leads implanted (two leads (OR:2.39 [95%CI: 1.43-4.00]), three leads (OR:4.77 [95%CI: 2.50-9.10])).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion is a rare complication after CIED-implantation in Denmark. This study reveals important patient- and procedure-related risk factors associated with clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.16442","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Pericardial effusion, a known complication to implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), may cause life-threatening cardiac tamponade. Limited knowledge is available about risk factors for clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion. The aim is to identify the patient- and procedure-related risk factors associated with clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion.
Method: A nationwide observational cohort study based on data on 55 121 patients from the Danish Pacemaker Register between 2000 and 2018. We defined a clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion related to the implantation if it occurred within 90 days after the primary CIED-procedure. Prespecified risk factors were analysed by multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the association with pericardial effusion.
Results: There were 115 (0.21%) patients diagnosed with clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion, with a median age of 75 years and 38.3% were females. Of these, 80.9% lead to a subsequent pericardiocentesis procedure. In adjusted logistic regression analysis, an increased risk of clinically relevant pericardial effusion was associated with female sex (OR:1.49 [95%CI: 1.03-2.16]), heart failure (OR:1.54 [95%CI: 1.06-2.23]), previous cardiac surgery (OR:1.63 [95%CI: 1.05-2.55]), CRT-device (OR:2.05 [95%CI: 1.23-3.41]), tertiary-centres (OR:1.8 [95%CI: 1.18-2.73]), increased procedural volume per year (>1000) (OR:1.85 [95%CI: 1.03-3.30]), indication of device-implantation (atrioventricular block) (OR:2.37 [95CI: 1.45-3.87]), and increasing number of leads implanted (two leads (OR:2.39 [95%CI: 1.43-4.00]), three leads (OR:4.77 [95%CI: 2.50-9.10])).
Conclusion: Clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion is a rare complication after CIED-implantation in Denmark. This study reveals important patient- and procedure-related risk factors associated with clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (JCE) keeps its readership well informed of the latest developments in the study and management of arrhythmic disorders. Edited by Bradley P. Knight, M.D., and a distinguished international editorial board, JCE is the leading journal devoted to the study of the electrophysiology of the heart.