Outcomes Following Implant of Semi-Permanent Pacemaker Versus Temporary Pacemaker

Modaff, Daniel S.; Leal, Miguel; Kopp, Douglas E.; Teelin, Thomas; Eckhardt, Lee L.; Wright, Jennifer M.; Hoffmayer, Kurt S.; Field, Michael E.; Kipp, Ryan

doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(17)33815-9

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 4 Previous studies have demonstrated that TPPM use is associated with decreased rates of lead dislocation and complications (eg, severe bradycardia requiring resuscitation, infection, inappropriate pacing, and venous thrombosis) compared to traditional TTVPs. 5 Our single-center experience in the Lyme-endemic region of southeastern Ontario shows that, of the 21 patients diagnosed with LC at our center in the last 5 years, 4 patients received TPPMs for the management of symptomatic bradycardia. The average duration of TPPM implant was 10.5 (standard deviation, 1.9) days, and there were no procedure-related complications.…”

Section: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 91%

An Ambulatory Approach to Atrioventricular Block in Lyme Carditis Using Temporary Permanent Pacemakers

Wang¹,

Baranchuk²,

Lacharite-Roberge³

et al. 2023

J Innov Cardiac Rhythm Manage.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 91%

An Ambulatory Approach to Atrioventricular Block in Lyme Carditis Using Temporary Permanent Pacemakers

Wang¹,

Baranchuk²,

Lacharite-Roberge³

et al. 2023

J Innov Cardiac Rhythm Manage.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The main advantage of the aforementioned semi-permanent temporary transvenous pacing system is the active fixation of the lead, which allows for obtaining appropriate pacing parameters over a longer period of time, compared to the unstable lead for temporary transvenous pacing. The use of semi-permanent pacing, compared to temporary transvenous pacing, is also associated with a significantly lower risk of major complications [ 38 ]. In another study, it was shown that the use of this type of therapy as a bridging therapy is associated with a significantly reduced risk of late endocarditis (hazard ratio (HR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09–0.069, p = 0.01) [ 39 ].…”

Section: Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevention of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: A Review

Sławiński¹,

Kempa²,

Przybylski³

2023

Rev. Cardiovasc. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in the treatment of cardiac rhythm disturbances, heart failure, and the prevention of sudden cardiac death is indisputable. However, CIED therapy is associated with complications, among which infections are particularly unfavourable in terms of prognosis. The diagnosis and management of CIED infections remain complex, with a significant impact on mortality and healthcare costs. For these reasons, the risk factors for CIED infections and methods of their prevention have been assessed in recent years. This review summarises the current state of knowledge on the subject. We also outlined the role of alternative methods, such as subcutaneous defibrillators, leadless pacemakers, and wearable cardioverter defibrillators.

show abstract