Incidence and predictors of pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy: A single-center experience

Abdin, Amr; Yalın, Kıvanç; Zink, Matthias Daniel; Napp, Andreas; Gramlich, Michael; Schuett, Katharina

doi:10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2019.08.016

Cited by 18 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The baseline characteristics of the three comparison studies compared with this systematic review vary in result. All three studies have higher mean age (Kim et [13][14][15] Finally, two studies have higher baseline LVEF (Kim et al, 65% and Khurshid et al, 64.67%) than the systematic review (59.4%) and one study has lower baseline LVEF (Abdin et al, 58.5%). [13][14][15] The predictor for the development of PICM from the three studies beside male gender are wider paced QRS complex and wider native QRS duration.…”

Section: The Difference Between This Systematic Review and Comparison Studiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…As a comparison, the other three studies by Kim et al, Abdin et al, and Khurshid et al gave a more consistent definition of PICM which was defined as "a !10% decrease in LVEF, with resultant LVEF <50%," which might explain a narrow range of PICM incidence (16-19.5%). [13][14][15] However, guidelines that regulate PM in the 2012 American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society and 2013 European Society of Cardiology did not mention PICM and as a result, there was no clear PICM definition. 5,17 The authors propose the need of general definition of PICM that may be develop from the existing definition.…”

Section: Definition Of Picmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies outside this systematic review also support the significance of male gender. 14,15 Abdin et al claimed male gender was statistically significant in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] ¼ 6.45; confidence interval [CI] ¼ 1.9-21.86; p ¼ 0.003). 14 Khurshid et al also supported the claim with significancy in multivariable analysis (HR ¼ 2.15; CI ¼ 1.17-3.94; p ¼ 0.01).…”

Section: Baseline Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14,15 Abdin et al claimed male gender was statistically significant in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] ¼ 6.45; confidence interval [CI] ¼ 1.9-21.86; p ¼ 0.003). 14 Khurshid et al also supported the claim with significancy in multivariable analysis (HR ¼ 2.15; CI ¼ 1.17-3.94; p ¼ 0.01). 15 Both studies considered male gender as a predictor for the development of PICM.…”

Section: Baseline Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Understanding Pacemaker-Induced Cardiomyopathy Incidence and Predictors in Patients with Right Ventricular Pacing: A Systematic Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to figure out the incidence and predictors of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in patients with right ventricular (RV) pacing. We systematically searched in PubMed on March 18, 2020, for English language abstract and full-article journals, using the following criteria: pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy AND right ventricular AND pacemaker AND patients AND human NOT implantable cardioverter defibrillator NOT ICD NOT animal. Four studies were included in this review after filtering 35 studies through year of publication and abstract selection. The average PICM incidence from 1,365 patients included from the four studies was 10.7 to 13.7%. One study stated that preimplantation left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was the predictor for the development of PICM. Three studies mentioned that RV pacing burden was the predictor for the development of PICM. However, the percentage differ in three studies: ≥20, >40, and 60%. In addition, one of the studies also included interventricular dyssynchrony as another predictor. The incidence of PICM in patients with RV pacing ranged from 10.7 to 13.7%. Preimplantation LVEF, interventricular dyssynchrony, and burden of RV pacing are reported as the predictors for the development of PICM in patients with RV pacing.

show abstract

Section: The Difference Between This Systematic Review and Comparison Studiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Definition Of Picmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Baseline Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Baseline Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding Pacemaker-Induced Cardiomyopathy Incidence and Predictors in Patients with Right Ventricular Pacing: A Systematic Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…tetés, hogy az RV szerepe a PICM kialakulásában ki is merülhet az ingerlési pozíció helyében, mint meghatározó --gyelés is bizonyította. Ugyanakkor újabb vizsgálatok nem tós PM-kezelés kiváltotta cardiomyopathiában (18,19,14), amelyek alapján továbbra is vitatható, hogy a jobb kamrai mechanika miként járul hozzá a PICM megjelenéséhez. cardio kamrai ejekciós frakció volt.…”

Section: Debreceni Egyetem Klinikai Központ Kardiológiai éS Szívsebéunclassified

A jobbkamra-funkció 3D-echos vizsgálata a tartós jobb kamrai ingerléshez társuló balkamra-diszfunkciónál

Kadar¹,

Jenei²,

Clemens³

et al. 2019

Cardiologia Hungarica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for treating bradyarrhythmia: systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Right ventricular pacing (RVP) may cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony leading to impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We investigated the outcomes of RVP with His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) for patients requiring a de novo permanent pacemaker (PPM) for bradyarrhythmia. Methods and results Systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing HBP or LBP with RVP for de novo PPM implantation between 01 January 2013 and 17 November 2020 was performed. Random and fixed effects meta-analyses of the effect of pacing technology on outcomes were performed. Study outcomes included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), LVEF, QRS duration, lead revision, atrial fibrillation, procedure parameters, and pacing metrics. Overall, 9 studies were included (6 observational, 3 randomised). HBP compared with RVP was associated with decreased HFH (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49–0.94), preservation of LVEF (mean difference [MD] 0.81, 95% CI − 1.23 to 2.85 vs. − 5.72, 95% CI − 7.64 to -3.79), increased procedure duration (MD 15.17 min, 95% CI 11.30–19.04), and increased lead revisions (RR 5.83, 95% CI 2.17–15.70, p = 0.0005). LBBP compared with RVP was associated with shorter paced QRS durations (MD 5.6 ms, 95% CI − 6.4 to 17.6) vs. (51.0 ms, 95% CI 39.2–62.9) and increased procedure duration (MD 37.78 min, 95% CI 20.04–55.51). Conclusion Of the limited studies published, this meta-analysis found that HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in maintaining physiological ventricular activation as an initial pacing strategy.

show abstract

Incidence and predictors of pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy: A single-center experience

Cited by 18 publications

References 19 publications

Understanding Pacemaker-Induced Cardiomyopathy Incidence and Predictors in Patients with Right Ventricular Pacing: A Systematic Review

Understanding Pacemaker-Induced Cardiomyopathy Incidence and Predictors in Patients with Right Ventricular Pacing: A Systematic Review

A jobbkamra-funkció 3D-echos vizsgálata a tartós jobb kamrai ingerléshez társuló balkamra-diszfunkciónál

Outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for treating bradyarrhythmia: systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About