Quality of life in patients with a leadless pacemaker versus transvenous pacemaker.

IF 3.7 3区医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS

Kardiologia polska Pub Date : 2025-06-13 DOI:10.33963/v.phj.106688

Szymon Warwas, Ewa Jędrzejczyk-Patej, Oskar Kowalski, Adam Sokal, Sławomir Pluta, Wiktoria Kowalska, Michał Mazurek, Radosław Lenarczyk, Zbigniew Kalarus, Beata Średniawa

{"title":"Quality of life in patients with a leadless pacemaker versus transvenous pacemaker.","authors":"Szymon Warwas, Ewa Jędrzejczyk-Patej, Oskar Kowalski, Adam Sokal, Sławomir Pluta, Wiktoria Kowalska, Michał Mazurek, Radosław Lenarczyk, Zbigniew Kalarus, Beata Średniawa","doi":"10.33963/v.phj.106688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The transvenous pacemaker (PM) is a well-accepted device for advanced atrioventricular block and sick sinus syndrome, but it is associated with complications. Leadless pacemakers (LPM) offer a solution by eliminating transvenous leads and PM pocket, potentially improving outcomes. However, the impact of LPM on quality of life (QoL) remains understudied.Aims: To compare QoL of patients with leadless versus transvenous PMs.Material and methods: Single-center prospective study included all comers with LPMs implanted between January 2016 and March 2022. A cohort of transvenous PM patients was matched to LPM subjects by age, sex, left ventricle ejection fraction, heart failure, atrial fibrillation and indication for the device implantation. All patients were requested to complete two standardized questionnaires: the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) 12 months after device implantation.Results: Patients with LPMs (n = 31) and matched transvenous PM group (n = 31) did not differ regarding baseline characteristics. The median MLHFQ total score was 33.5 (0-88) for LPM and 21 (3-68) for PM group (P = 0.80). The median total score for the SF-36 questionnaire was 54 (8-140) vs. 35 (14-105) for LPM and PM, respectively (P = 0.86). No differences were found between leadless and transvenous PM subgroups, both for mental and physical QoL assessed in MLHFQ (6 [2-9.5] vs. 2 [0-6]; P = 0.08; 9.5 [2-19] vs. 7 [1-12]; P = 0.52, respectively) and in domains of SF-36.Conclusions: QoL after device implantation does not differ between patients with leadless and transvenous PMs.","PeriodicalId":17784,"journal":{"name":"Kardiologia polska","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kardiologia polska","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33963/v.phj.106688","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The transvenous pacemaker (PM) is a well-accepted device for advanced atrioventricular block and sick sinus syndrome, but it is associated with complications. Leadless pacemakers (LPM) offer a solution by eliminating transvenous leads and PM pocket, potentially improving outcomes. However, the impact of LPM on quality of life (QoL) remains understudied.

Aims: To compare QoL of patients with leadless versus transvenous PMs.

Material and methods: Single-center prospective study included all comers with LPMs implanted between January 2016 and March 2022. A cohort of transvenous PM patients was matched to LPM subjects by age, sex, left ventricle ejection fraction, heart failure, atrial fibrillation and indication for the device implantation. All patients were requested to complete two standardized questionnaires: the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) 12 months after device implantation.

Results: Patients with LPMs (n = 31) and matched transvenous PM group (n = 31) did not differ regarding baseline characteristics. The median MLHFQ total score was 33.5 (0-88) for LPM and 21 (3-68) for PM group (P = 0.80). The median total score for the SF-36 questionnaire was 54 (8-140) vs. 35 (14-105) for LPM and PM, respectively (P = 0.86). No differences were found between leadless and transvenous PM subgroups, both for mental and physical QoL assessed in MLHFQ (6 [2-9.5] vs. 2 [0-6]; P = 0.08; 9.5 [2-19] vs. 7 [1-12]; P = 0.52, respectively) and in domains of SF-36.

Conclusions: QoL after device implantation does not differ between patients with leadless and transvenous PMs.

查看原文本刊更多论文

无导线起搏器与经静脉起搏器患者的生活质量。

背景：经静脉起搏器（PM）是晚期房室传导阻滞和病态窦综合征的一种被广泛接受的设备，但它与并发症有关。无导线起搏器（LPM）通过消除经静脉导线和PM袋提供了解决方案，可能改善预后。然而，LPM对生活质量（QoL）的影响仍未得到充分研究。目的：比较无导线与经静脉pmms患者的生活质量。材料与方法：单中心前瞻性研究纳入2016年1月至2022年3月期间植入lpm的所有患者。通过年龄、性别、左心室射血分数、心力衰竭、心房颤动和器械植入适应症将经静脉PM患者与LPM患者进行匹配。所有患者被要求完成两份标准化问卷：36项简短健康调查（SF-36）和明尼苏达州心力衰竭生活问卷（MLHFQ）在器械植入后12个月。结果：lpm患者（n = 31）和匹配的经静脉PM组（n = 31）在基线特征方面没有差异。LPM组MLHFQ总分中位数为33.5分（0-88分），PM组为21分（3-68分）（P = 0.80）。SF-36问卷总分中位数分别为54分（8-140分）和35分（14-105分），差异有统计学意义（P = 0.86）。在MLHFQ评估的精神和身体生活质量方面，无铅PM亚组与经静脉PM亚组之间没有差异(6 [2-9.5]vs. 2 [0-6]；P = 0.08；9.5 [2-19] vs. 7 [1-12]；P = 0.52)和SF-36的域。结论：经静脉与无铅pmms患者植入术后的生活质量无显著差异。

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

Kardiologia polska 医学-心血管系统

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

24.20%

发文量

431

审稿时长

3-6 weeks

期刊介绍： Kardiologia Polska (Kardiol Pol, Polish Heart Journal) is the official peer-reviewed journal of the Polish Cardiac Society (PTK, Polskie Towarzystwo Kardiologiczne) published monthly since 1957. It aims to provide a platform for sharing knowledge in cardiology, from basic science to translational and clinical research on cardiovascular diseases.