高压氧治疗对心血管植入式电子设备的影响

IF 2.2 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Kentaro Goto MD, Shinsuke Miyazaki MD, Takuya Oyaizu MD, Miho Negishi MD, Takashi Ikenouchi MD, Tasuku Yamamoto MD, Iwanari Kawamura MD, Takuro Nishimura MD, Tomomasa Takamiya MD, Susumu Tao MD, Masateru Takigawa MD, Kazuyoshi Yagishita MD, Tetsuo Sasano MD
{"title":"高压氧治疗对心血管植入式电子设备的影响","authors":"Kentaro Goto MD,&nbsp;Shinsuke Miyazaki MD,&nbsp;Takuya Oyaizu MD,&nbsp;Miho Negishi MD,&nbsp;Takashi Ikenouchi MD,&nbsp;Tasuku Yamamoto MD,&nbsp;Iwanari Kawamura MD,&nbsp;Takuro Nishimura MD,&nbsp;Tomomasa Takamiya MD,&nbsp;Susumu Tao MD,&nbsp;Masateru Takigawa MD,&nbsp;Kazuyoshi Yagishita MD,&nbsp;Tetsuo Sasano MD","doi":"10.1002/joa3.13070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The safety of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBO<sub>2</sub>) in patients with cardiovascular implanted electronic devices (CIED) remains unclear.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a retrospective analysis of seven CIED patients (median age 79 [73–83] years, five males [71.4%]), including five with pacemakers and two with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), who underwent HBO<sub>2</sub> between June 2013 and April 2023. During the initial session, electrocardiogram monitoring was conducted, and CIED checks were performed before and after the treatment. In addition, the medical records were scrutinized to identify any abnormal CIED operations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>All seven CIED patients underwent HBO<sub>2</sub> within the safety pressure range specified by the CIED manufacturers or general pressure test by the International Organization for Standardization (2.5 [2.5–2.5] atmosphere absolute × 18 [5–20] sessions). When comparing the CIED parameters before and after HBO<sub>2</sub>, no significant changes were observed in the waveform amplitudes, pacing thresholds, lead impedance of the atrial and ventricular leads, or battery levels. All seven patients, including two with the rate response function activated, exhibited no significant changes in the pacing rate or pacing failure. Two ICD patients did not deactivate the therapy, including the defibrillation; however, they did not experience any arrhythmia or inappropriate ICD therapy during the HBO<sub>2</sub>.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>CIED patients who underwent HBO<sub>2</sub> within the safety pressure range exhibited no significant changes in the parameters immediately after the HBO<sub>2</sub> and had no observable abnormal CIED operations during the treatment. The safety of defibrillation by an ICD during HBO<sub>2</sub> should be clarified.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15174,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arrhythmia","volume":"40 4","pages":"958-964"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joa3.13070","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of hyperbaric oxygen treatment for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices\",\"authors\":\"Kentaro Goto MD,&nbsp;Shinsuke Miyazaki MD,&nbsp;Takuya Oyaizu MD,&nbsp;Miho Negishi MD,&nbsp;Takashi Ikenouchi MD,&nbsp;Tasuku Yamamoto MD,&nbsp;Iwanari Kawamura MD,&nbsp;Takuro Nishimura MD,&nbsp;Tomomasa Takamiya MD,&nbsp;Susumu Tao MD,&nbsp;Masateru Takigawa MD,&nbsp;Kazuyoshi Yagishita MD,&nbsp;Tetsuo Sasano MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/joa3.13070\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>The safety of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBO<sub>2</sub>) in patients with cardiovascular implanted electronic devices (CIED) remains unclear.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted a retrospective analysis of seven CIED patients (median age 79 [73–83] years, five males [71.4%]), including five with pacemakers and two with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), who underwent HBO<sub>2</sub> between June 2013 and April 2023. During the initial session, electrocardiogram monitoring was conducted, and CIED checks were performed before and after the treatment. In addition, the medical records were scrutinized to identify any abnormal CIED operations.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>All seven CIED patients underwent HBO<sub>2</sub> within the safety pressure range specified by the CIED manufacturers or general pressure test by the International Organization for Standardization (2.5 [2.5–2.5] atmosphere absolute × 18 [5–20] sessions). When comparing the CIED parameters before and after HBO<sub>2</sub>, no significant changes were observed in the waveform amplitudes, pacing thresholds, lead impedance of the atrial and ventricular leads, or battery levels. All seven patients, including two with the rate response function activated, exhibited no significant changes in the pacing rate or pacing failure. Two ICD patients did not deactivate the therapy, including the defibrillation; however, they did not experience any arrhythmia or inappropriate ICD therapy during the HBO<sub>2</sub>.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>CIED patients who underwent HBO<sub>2</sub> within the safety pressure range exhibited no significant changes in the parameters immediately after the HBO<sub>2</sub> and had no observable abnormal CIED operations during the treatment. The safety of defibrillation by an ICD during HBO<sub>2</sub> should be clarified.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Arrhythmia\",\"volume\":\"40 4\",\"pages\":\"958-964\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joa3.13070\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Arrhythmia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joa3.13070\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Arrhythmia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joa3.13070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们对 2013 年 6 月至 2023 年 4 月期间接受高压氧治疗的 7 名心血管植入电子装置(CIED)患者(中位年龄 79 [73-83] 岁,5 名男性 [71.4%])进行了回顾性分析,其中包括 5 名心脏起搏器患者和 2 名植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)患者。在首次治疗期间,进行了心电图监测,并在治疗前后进行了 CIED 检查。所有七名CIED患者均在CIED制造商规定的安全压力范围内或国际标准化组织规定的一般压力测试(2.5 [2.5-2.5] 个大气压绝对值 × 18 [5-20] 次)接受了HBO2治疗。比较 HBO2 前后的 CIED 参数,波形振幅、起搏阈值、心房和心室导联阻抗或电池电量均无明显变化。所有七名患者(包括两名启动了心率反应功能的患者)的起搏率或起搏失败率均无明显变化。在安全压力范围内进行 HBO2 的 CIED 患者在 HBO2 结束后立即显示参数无明显变化,治疗期间也未观察到异常的 CIED 操作。在 HBO2 期间使用 ICD 除颤的安全性应予以明确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The impact of hyperbaric oxygen treatment for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

The impact of hyperbaric oxygen treatment for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

Introduction

The safety of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBO2) in patients with cardiovascular implanted electronic devices (CIED) remains unclear.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of seven CIED patients (median age 79 [73–83] years, five males [71.4%]), including five with pacemakers and two with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), who underwent HBO2 between June 2013 and April 2023. During the initial session, electrocardiogram monitoring was conducted, and CIED checks were performed before and after the treatment. In addition, the medical records were scrutinized to identify any abnormal CIED operations.

Results

All seven CIED patients underwent HBO2 within the safety pressure range specified by the CIED manufacturers or general pressure test by the International Organization for Standardization (2.5 [2.5–2.5] atmosphere absolute × 18 [5–20] sessions). When comparing the CIED parameters before and after HBO2, no significant changes were observed in the waveform amplitudes, pacing thresholds, lead impedance of the atrial and ventricular leads, or battery levels. All seven patients, including two with the rate response function activated, exhibited no significant changes in the pacing rate or pacing failure. Two ICD patients did not deactivate the therapy, including the defibrillation; however, they did not experience any arrhythmia or inappropriate ICD therapy during the HBO2.

Conclusion

CIED patients who underwent HBO2 within the safety pressure range exhibited no significant changes in the parameters immediately after the HBO2 and had no observable abnormal CIED operations during the treatment. The safety of defibrillation by an ICD during HBO2 should be clarified.

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
Journal of Arrhythmia
Journal of Arrhythmia CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
127
审稿时长
45 weeks
×
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