Venous Obstruction in Permanent Pacemaker Patients: An Isotopic Study

Pauletti, M; Ricco, G.; Solfanelli, S.; Marini, Carlo; Contini, Carlo; Giuntini, C.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-8159.1981.tb03672.x

Cited by 42 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Number of leads as a risk factor was also detected in some other previous reports [4,5,16]. Although some other studies have not approved this correlation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis and stenosis after implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators; A prospective study

Safi

Akbarzadeh

Azinfar

et al. 2017

Romanian Journal of Internal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Obstruction of the access vein following cardiac pacemaker and defibrillator implantation is a common complication. However, the exact incidence and contributing risk factors are unknown. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence and analyze the contribution of each risk factor.Methods. 57 consecutive patients candidate for their first transvenous pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), or cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation were enrolled. After implantation, venography of the ipsilateral peripheral arm was performed. Patients underwent their second venography after the follow-up period of 3 to 6 months.Results. 42 patients (13 females, mean age 59.71 ± 12.33) completed the study. The followup venography showed significant venous obstruction (more than 50%) in 9 (21%) patients, but in none of the individuals, venography revealed total occlusion of the veins. Patients with obstruction had more leads in their veins (2.56 ± 0.53 vs 1.58 ± 0.71, P = 0.001). Venous obstruction was significantly more prevalent in patients with implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy device compared with an ICD or pacemaker (p = 0. 01). Age, gender, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ischemic heart disease and antiplatelet consumption did not reveal any other contribution to the risk of thrombosis. In multivariate analysis, total lead number was a positive predictor for venous occlusion (P = 0.015, OR:19.2, and CI: 1.7-207.1).Conclusion. Venous obstruction is relatively frequent after pacemaker or ICD implantation. This study also shows that pacemaker and ICD leads have a similar risk for lead-related venous obstruction. However, patients with multiple leads are associated with an increased risk.

show abstract

“…Number of leads as a risk factor was also detected in some other previous reports [4,5,16]. Although some other studies have not approved this correlation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis and stenosis after implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators; A prospective study

Safi

Akbarzadeh

Azinfar

et al. 2017

Romanian Journal of Internal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The assessment of vein patency among patients with endocardial lead and controls was performed by contrast venography, which is considered the gold standard [6]; however, there exist other methods such as venous Doppler ultrasound [13,14] and isotope studies [18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Venous Stenosis and Occlusion in the Presence of Endocardial Leads

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Small unipolar electrodes should be used. The incidence of subclavian vein obstruction is greater when large bipo lar electrode pacemakers are used [8,12]. Venograms should be routinely performed in any patient with an indwelling pacemaker who is to have a dialysis fistula fashioned.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subclavian Vein Stenosis, Permanent Cardiac Pacemakers and the Haemodialysed Patient

Korzets

Chagnac

Ori

et al. 1991

Nephron

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two cases of subclavian vein stenosis secondary to permanent cardiac pacemakers are presented. Both stenoses were asymptomatic until arteriovenous fistulae/grafts were constructed in order to initiate haemodialysis. One patient experienced severe oedema of the arm which necessitated surgical closure of the graft. A literature review into major venous stenosis and cardiac pacemakers reveals an asymptomatic, but evidently underestimated, problem. As more elderly patients will be accepted onto haemodialysis programmes, this above-mentioned problem may become more common. Therapeutic answers as to haemodialysis access are discussed in these patients with permanent pacemakers who need haemodialysis.

show abstract

Venous Obstruction in Permanent Pacemaker Patients: An Isotopic Study

Cited by 42 publications

References 19 publications

Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis and stenosis after implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators; A prospective study

Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis and stenosis after implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators; A prospective study

Venous Stenosis and Occlusion in the Presence of Endocardial Leads

Subclavian Vein Stenosis, Permanent Cardiac Pacemakers and the Haemodialysed Patient

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About