新近植入心脏植入式电子装置的患者接受导管消融术的安全性:5 年经验

Christian Toquica, Mohammad‐Ali Jazayeri, Amit Noheria, Loren Berenbom, Martin Emert, Rhea Pimentel, Raghu Dendi, Y. Madhu Reddy, Seth H. Sheldon
{"title":"新近植入心脏植入式电子装置的患者接受导管消融术的安全性:5 年经验","authors":"Christian Toquica, Mohammad‐Ali Jazayeri, Amit Noheria, Loren Berenbom, Martin Emert, Rhea Pimentel, Raghu Dendi, Y. Madhu Reddy, Seth H. Sheldon","doi":"10.1111/pace.14987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionCatheter ablation (CA) can interfere with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) function. The safety of CA in the 1st year after CIED implantation/lead revision is uncertain.MethodsThis single center, retrospective cohort included patients who underwent CA between 2012 and 2017 and had a CIED implant/lead revision within the preceding year. We assessed the frequency of device/lead malfunctions in this population.ResultsWe identified 1810 CAs in patients between 2012 and 2017, with 170 CAs in 163 patients within a year of a CIED implant/lead revision. Mean age 68 ± 12 years (68% men). Time between the CIED procedure and CA was 158 ± 99 days. The CA procedures included AF ablation (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 57, 34%), AV node ablation (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 40, 24%), SVT ablation (<jats:italic>n </jats:italic>= 37, 22%), and PVC/VT ablations (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 36, 21%). The cumulative frequency of lead dislodgement, significant CIED dysfunction, and/or CIED‐related infection following CA was (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 1/170, 0.6%). There was a single atrial lead dislodgement (0.6%). There were no instances of power‐on‐reset or CIED‐related infection. Following CA, there was no significant difference in RA or RV lead sensing (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.52 and 0.84 respectively) or thresholds (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.94 and 0.17 respectively). The RA impedance slightly decreased post‐CA from 474 ± 80 Ohms to 460 ± 73 Ohms (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.002), as did the RV impedance (from 515 ± 111 Ohms to 497 ± 98 Ohms, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.0001).ConclusionsCA can be performed within 1 year following CIED implantation/lead revision with a low risk of CIED/lead malfunction or lead dislodgement. The ideal time to perform CA after a CIED remains uncertain.","PeriodicalId":19650,"journal":{"name":"Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","volume":"279 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety of catheter ablation in patients with recently implanted cardiac implantable electronic device: A 5‐year experience\",\"authors\":\"Christian Toquica, Mohammad‐Ali Jazayeri, Amit Noheria, Loren Berenbom, Martin Emert, Rhea Pimentel, Raghu Dendi, Y. Madhu Reddy, Seth H. Sheldon\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pace.14987\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"IntroductionCatheter ablation (CA) can interfere with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) function. The safety of CA in the 1st year after CIED implantation/lead revision is uncertain.MethodsThis single center, retrospective cohort included patients who underwent CA between 2012 and 2017 and had a CIED implant/lead revision within the preceding year. We assessed the frequency of device/lead malfunctions in this population.ResultsWe identified 1810 CAs in patients between 2012 and 2017, with 170 CAs in 163 patients within a year of a CIED implant/lead revision. Mean age 68 ± 12 years (68% men). Time between the CIED procedure and CA was 158 ± 99 days. The CA procedures included AF ablation (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 57, 34%), AV node ablation (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 40, 24%), SVT ablation (<jats:italic>n </jats:italic>= 37, 22%), and PVC/VT ablations (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 36, 21%). The cumulative frequency of lead dislodgement, significant CIED dysfunction, and/or CIED‐related infection following CA was (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 1/170, 0.6%). There was a single atrial lead dislodgement (0.6%). There were no instances of power‐on‐reset or CIED‐related infection. Following CA, there was no significant difference in RA or RV lead sensing (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.52 and 0.84 respectively) or thresholds (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.94 and 0.17 respectively). The RA impedance slightly decreased post‐CA from 474 ± 80 Ohms to 460 ± 73 Ohms (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.002), as did the RV impedance (from 515 ± 111 Ohms to 497 ± 98 Ohms, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.0001).ConclusionsCA can be performed within 1 year following CIED implantation/lead revision with a low risk of CIED/lead malfunction or lead dislodgement. The ideal time to perform CA after a CIED remains uncertain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\"279 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14987\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14987","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言导管消融术(CA)会干扰心脏植入式电子装置(CIED)的功能。该单中心回顾性队列纳入了在 2012 年至 2017 年期间接受导管消融术并在前一年内进行过 CIED 植入/导联修正的患者。我们评估了该人群中设备/导线故障的频率。结果我们在 2012 年至 2017 年间的患者中发现了 1810 例 CA,其中 163 例患者在 CIED 植入/导线翻修后一年内发生了 170 例 CA。平均年龄为 68 ± 12 岁(68% 为男性)。CIED手术与CA之间的间隔时间为158±99天。CA手术包括房颤消融(57例,34%)、房室结消融(40例,24%)、SVT消融(37例,22%)和PVC/VT消融(36例,21%)。CA术后发生导联脱落、CIED明显功能障碍和/或CIED相关感染的累计频率为(n = 1/170,0.6%)。发生过一次心房导联脱落(0.6%)。没有发生电源复位或与 CIED 相关的感染。CA 后,RA 或 RV 导联传感(p = 0.52 和 0.84)或阈值(p = 0.94 和 0.17)无明显差异。CA 后 RA 阻抗略有下降,从 474 ± 80 欧姆降至 460 ± 73 欧姆(p = 0.002),RV 阻抗也是如此(从 515 ± 111 欧姆降至 497 ± 98 欧姆,p < 0.0001)。CIED术后进行CA的理想时间仍不确定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Safety of catheter ablation in patients with recently implanted cardiac implantable electronic device: A 5‐year experience
IntroductionCatheter ablation (CA) can interfere with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) function. The safety of CA in the 1st year after CIED implantation/lead revision is uncertain.MethodsThis single center, retrospective cohort included patients who underwent CA between 2012 and 2017 and had a CIED implant/lead revision within the preceding year. We assessed the frequency of device/lead malfunctions in this population.ResultsWe identified 1810 CAs in patients between 2012 and 2017, with 170 CAs in 163 patients within a year of a CIED implant/lead revision. Mean age 68 ± 12 years (68% men). Time between the CIED procedure and CA was 158 ± 99 days. The CA procedures included AF ablation (n = 57, 34%), AV node ablation (n = 40, 24%), SVT ablation (n = 37, 22%), and PVC/VT ablations (n = 36, 21%). The cumulative frequency of lead dislodgement, significant CIED dysfunction, and/or CIED‐related infection following CA was (n = 1/170, 0.6%). There was a single atrial lead dislodgement (0.6%). There were no instances of power‐on‐reset or CIED‐related infection. Following CA, there was no significant difference in RA or RV lead sensing (p = 0.52 and 0.84 respectively) or thresholds (p = 0.94 and 0.17 respectively). The RA impedance slightly decreased post‐CA from 474 ± 80 Ohms to 460 ± 73 Ohms (p = 0.002), as did the RV impedance (from 515 ± 111 Ohms to 497 ± 98 Ohms, p < 0.0001).ConclusionsCA can be performed within 1 year following CIED implantation/lead revision with a low risk of CIED/lead malfunction or lead dislodgement. The ideal time to perform CA after a CIED remains uncertain.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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