左束区起搏后当日放电。

Anis John Kadado, Kyle Gobeil, Abdullah Pervaiz, Shayal Pundlik, Ryan Pritham, Yasin Obeidat, Anum Fatima, Khalid Sawalha, Fadi Chalhoub
{"title":"左束区起搏后当日放电。","authors":"Anis John Kadado,&nbsp;Kyle Gobeil,&nbsp;Abdullah Pervaiz,&nbsp;Shayal Pundlik,&nbsp;Ryan Pritham,&nbsp;Yasin Obeidat,&nbsp;Anum Fatima,&nbsp;Khalid Sawalha,&nbsp;Fadi Chalhoub","doi":"10.1097/HPC.0000000000000306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Left bundle area pacing (LBAP) has emerged as an area that appears to be an attractive alternative to other forms of physiological pacing owing to its ease and favorable pacing parameters. Same-day discharge after conventional pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and more recently leadless pacemakers have become routine, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. With the advent of LBAP, the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective, observational case series of consecutive, sequential patients undergoing LBAP at Baystate Medical Center, an academic teaching hospital. We included all patients who underwent LBAP and were discharged on the same day of procedure completion. Safety parameters included any procedure-related complications including pneumothorax, cardiac tamponade, septal perforation, and lead dislodgement. Pacemaker parameters included pacing threshold, R-wave amplitude, and lead impedance pre-discharge the following day of implantation and up to 6 months of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11 patients were included in our analysis, the average age was 70.3 ± 6.74 years. The most common indication for pacemaker insertion was AV block (73%). No complications were seen in any of the patients. The average time between the procedure and discharge was 5.6 hours. Pacemaker and lead parameters were stable after 6 months of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this case series, we find that same-day discharge after LBAP for any indication is a safe and feasible option. As this mode of pacing becomes increasingly more common, larger prospective studies evaluating the safety and feasibility of early discharge after LBAP will be needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":35914,"journal":{"name":"Critical Pathways in Cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Same-Day Discharge After Left Bundle Area Pacing.\",\"authors\":\"Anis John Kadado,&nbsp;Kyle Gobeil,&nbsp;Abdullah Pervaiz,&nbsp;Shayal Pundlik,&nbsp;Ryan Pritham,&nbsp;Yasin Obeidat,&nbsp;Anum Fatima,&nbsp;Khalid Sawalha,&nbsp;Fadi Chalhoub\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HPC.0000000000000306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Left bundle area pacing (LBAP) has emerged as an area that appears to be an attractive alternative to other forms of physiological pacing owing to its ease and favorable pacing parameters. Same-day discharge after conventional pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and more recently leadless pacemakers have become routine, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. With the advent of LBAP, the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective, observational case series of consecutive, sequential patients undergoing LBAP at Baystate Medical Center, an academic teaching hospital. We included all patients who underwent LBAP and were discharged on the same day of procedure completion. Safety parameters included any procedure-related complications including pneumothorax, cardiac tamponade, septal perforation, and lead dislodgement. Pacemaker parameters included pacing threshold, R-wave amplitude, and lead impedance pre-discharge the following day of implantation and up to 6 months of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11 patients were included in our analysis, the average age was 70.3 ± 6.74 years. The most common indication for pacemaker insertion was AV block (73%). No complications were seen in any of the patients. The average time between the procedure and discharge was 5.6 hours. Pacemaker and lead parameters were stable after 6 months of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this case series, we find that same-day discharge after LBAP for any indication is a safe and feasible option. As this mode of pacing becomes increasingly more common, larger prospective studies evaluating the safety and feasibility of early discharge after LBAP will be needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Pathways in Cardiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Pathways in Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/HPC.0000000000000306\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Pathways in Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HPC.0000000000000306","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:左束区域起搏(LBAP)由于其易于使用和有利的起搏参数,已成为其他形式的生理起搏的一个有吸引力的替代区域。在使用传统起搏器、植入式心律转复除颤器和最近的无铅起搏器后,当天出院已成为常规,尤其是在2019冠状病毒病大流行之后。随着LBAP的出现,当日排放的安全性和可行性仍不清楚。方法:这是一个回顾性的、观察性的病例系列,连续的、顺序的患者在Baystate医学中心,一个学术教学医院接受LBAP。我们纳入了所有接受LBAP并在手术完成当天出院的患者。安全性参数包括任何手术相关并发症,包括气胸、心包填塞、间隔穿孔和导联脱位。起搏器参数包括起搏阈值、r波振幅和导联阻抗,在植入次日和6个月的随访中进行预放电。结果:共纳入11例患者,平均年龄70.3±6.74岁。起搏器植入最常见的适应症是房室阻滞(73%)。所有患者均未出现并发症。从手术到出院的平均时间为5.6小时。随访6个月起搏器及导联参数稳定。结论:在本病例系列中,我们发现LBAP术后当天出院对于任何适应症都是安全可行的选择。随着这种起搏模式变得越来越普遍,需要更大规模的前瞻性研究来评估LBAP术后早期出院的安全性和可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Same-Day Discharge After Left Bundle Area Pacing.

Background: Left bundle area pacing (LBAP) has emerged as an area that appears to be an attractive alternative to other forms of physiological pacing owing to its ease and favorable pacing parameters. Same-day discharge after conventional pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and more recently leadless pacemakers have become routine, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. With the advent of LBAP, the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge remain unclear.

Methods: This is a retrospective, observational case series of consecutive, sequential patients undergoing LBAP at Baystate Medical Center, an academic teaching hospital. We included all patients who underwent LBAP and were discharged on the same day of procedure completion. Safety parameters included any procedure-related complications including pneumothorax, cardiac tamponade, septal perforation, and lead dislodgement. Pacemaker parameters included pacing threshold, R-wave amplitude, and lead impedance pre-discharge the following day of implantation and up to 6 months of follow-up.

Results: A total of 11 patients were included in our analysis, the average age was 70.3 ± 6.74 years. The most common indication for pacemaker insertion was AV block (73%). No complications were seen in any of the patients. The average time between the procedure and discharge was 5.6 hours. Pacemaker and lead parameters were stable after 6 months of follow-up.

Conclusions: In this case series, we find that same-day discharge after LBAP for any indication is a safe and feasible option. As this mode of pacing becomes increasingly more common, larger prospective studies evaluating the safety and feasibility of early discharge after LBAP will be needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Pathways in Cardiology
Critical Pathways in Cardiology Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Critical Pathways in Cardiology provides a single source for the diagnostic and therapeutic protocols in use at hospitals worldwide for patients with cardiac disorders. The Journal presents critical pathways for specific diagnoses—complete with evidence-based rationales—and also publishes studies of these protocols" effectiveness.
期刊最新文献
Altered anthropometrics and HA1c levels, but not dyslipidemia, are associated with elevated hs-CRP levels in middle-aged adults: A population-based analysis. Role of Embolic Protection in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention without Saphenous Venous graft lesions in ST-elevation myocardial infarction - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Peripheral Artery Disease and Critical Limb Ischemia in the United States. Emergency Department and Critical Care Use of Clevidipine for Treatment of Hypertension in Patients with Acute Stroke. Impact of as Needed Heparin Boluses on Supratherapeutic Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time in Patients Managed With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1