Leadless Versus Single Chamber Pacemakers: An Analysis From the National Readmissions Database of Adverse Outcomes.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Anshul Parulkar, Wasiq Sheikh, Phinnara Has, Tamara P Lhungay, Esseim Sharma, Braden Vogt, Fabio V Lima, Malik Bilal Ahmed, Estelle Torbey, Daniel Philbin, Antony F Chu
{"title":"Leadless Versus Single Chamber Pacemakers: An Analysis From the National Readmissions Database of Adverse Outcomes.","authors":"Anshul Parulkar, Wasiq Sheikh, Phinnara Has, Tamara P Lhungay, Esseim Sharma, Braden Vogt, Fabio V Lima, Malik Bilal Ahmed, Estelle Torbey, Daniel Philbin, Antony F Chu","doi":"10.1111/jce.16704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Leadless pacemakers are considered a low-risk alternative to single-lead pacemakers (SL-PPMs). In 2021, the FDA issued a warning regarding leadless pacemakers because of increased morbidity and mortality from perforation. Clinical outcome data is limited. The National Readmissions Database (NRD) is a nationally representative annualized sample of US hospitalizations that may shed insight on patient selection and procedural risks from leadless pacemaker implantation.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Determine patient selection, adverse events and mortality rates related to leadless pacemakers versus SL-PPM using the NRD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>NRD data was analyzed from January 2016 to December 2019. ICD-10 and ICD-CM 10 coding was used to identify patients and adverse outcomes. Predictors of mortality and cardiac perforation were determined by multivariable regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Distribution of age and gender were similar between both groups. Patients receiving single-chamber leadless pacemakers were more likely to be dialysis dependent, have diabetes and obstructive sleep apnea. Mortality was higher in leadless pacemakers (5.3% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001) with a higher incidence of adverse outcomes. A multivariable regression model found that dialysis dependence and pulmonary hypertension increased the risk for mortality in leadless pacemakers while obstructive sleep apnea and diabetes were associated with lower risk. Leadless pacemakers had an adjusted odds ratio of 2.74 and 2.92 for death and perforation respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mortality rates were higher in patients receiving leadless pacemakers with a higher incidence of adverse outcomes in patients with dialysis dependence and pulmonary hypertension. Clinical benefits may be offset by increased risk of procedural mortality and adverse outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-04","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.16704","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

Background: Leadless pacemakers are considered a low-risk alternative to single-lead pacemakers (SL-PPMs). In 2021, the FDA issued a warning regarding leadless pacemakers because of increased morbidity and mortality from perforation. Clinical outcome data is limited. The National Readmissions Database (NRD) is a nationally representative annualized sample of US hospitalizations that may shed insight on patient selection and procedural risks from leadless pacemaker implantation.

Objective: Determine patient selection, adverse events and mortality rates related to leadless pacemakers versus SL-PPM using the NRD.

Methods: NRD data was analyzed from January 2016 to December 2019. ICD-10 and ICD-CM 10 coding was used to identify patients and adverse outcomes. Predictors of mortality and cardiac perforation were determined by multivariable regression.

Results: Distribution of age and gender were similar between both groups. Patients receiving single-chamber leadless pacemakers were more likely to be dialysis dependent, have diabetes and obstructive sleep apnea. Mortality was higher in leadless pacemakers (5.3% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001) with a higher incidence of adverse outcomes. A multivariable regression model found that dialysis dependence and pulmonary hypertension increased the risk for mortality in leadless pacemakers while obstructive sleep apnea and diabetes were associated with lower risk. Leadless pacemakers had an adjusted odds ratio of 2.74 and 2.92 for death and perforation respectively.

Conclusions: Mortality rates were higher in patients receiving leadless pacemakers with a higher incidence of adverse outcomes in patients with dialysis dependence and pulmonary hypertension. Clinical benefits may be offset by increased risk of procedural mortality and adverse outcomes.

无铅与单室起搏器:来自国家再入院数据库的不良结果分析
背景:无导线起搏器被认为是单导线起搏器(SL-PPMs)的低风险替代品。2021年,由于穿孔的发病率和死亡率增加,FDA发布了关于无导线起搏器的警告。临床结果数据有限。国家再入院数据库(NRD)是一个具有全国代表性的年度美国住院病例样本,可以深入了解无导联起搏器植入的患者选择和程序风险。目的:利用NRD确定无导联起搏器与SL-PPM相关的患者选择、不良事件和死亡率。方法:对2016年1月至2019年12月的NRD数据进行分析。使用ICD-10和ICD-CM -10编码来识别患者和不良结局。通过多变量回归确定死亡率和心脏穿孔的预测因子。结果:两组患者年龄、性别分布相似。接受单室无铅起搏器的患者更有可能依赖透析,患有糖尿病和阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停。无铅起搏器组的死亡率更高(5.3% vs. 1.9%)。结论:在透析依赖和肺动脉高压患者中,使用无铅起搏器的患者死亡率更高,不良结局发生率更高。临床获益可能被增加的手术死亡率和不良后果风险所抵消。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
14.80%
发文量
433
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信