Temporary cardiac pacing using permanent pacing leads
A safe alternative?
Keywords:
Atrioventricular Block, Sinoatrial Node, Pacemaker, ArtificialAbstract
Introduction: Temporary cardiac pacing is eventually required for more than 15 days. This clinical context is associated with complications such as electrode displacement and cardiac perforation, requiring repositioning or electrode replacement. In addition, conventional electrodes and generators for temporary
cardiac stimulation force patients to stay in bed with its consequences. Objective: to evaluate a previously studied method of temporary stimulation related to a lower incidence of complications which allows patient to walk. Method: 24 patients were studied between January 2015 and December 2017, who underwent temporary PM
implantation with the use of an active fixation electrode. Results: mean age was 68.9 years, and patients were predominantly male. The mean time of use of the temporary pacemaker (PM) was 9.7 days, ranging from two to 28 days. During a total time of 233 patients/day, there was no electrode displacement, no stimulation failures or a need for system revision. Conclusion: Temporary stimulation using definitive PM fixation active electrodes was safe and had a positive impact on patients’ quality of life.
Downloads
References
2. McCann, P. A Review of Temporary Cardiac Pacing Wires. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2007;7(1):40-9.
3. Hynes JK, Holmes DR, Harrison CE. Five year experience with temporary pacemaker therapy in the coronary care unit. Mayo Clin Proc. 1983;58(2):122-6. DOI: 10.1016/0002-149(82)92216-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(82)92216-0
4. Winner S, Boon N. Clinical problems with temporary pacemakers prior to permanent pacing. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1989;23(3):161-3. PMID: 2769615
5. Ayerbe JL, Sabaté RV, García CG, Leor OR, Pérez MG, Abadal AC, et al. Temporary Pacemakers: Current Use and Complications. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2004;57(11):1045-52. DOI: 10.1016/S1885-5857(06)60190-4 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1885-5857(06)60190-4
6. Knudsen MB, Thogersen AM, Hjortshøj SP, Riahi S. The Impact of Drug Discontinuation in Patients Treated with Temporary Pacemaker Due to Atrioventricular Block, Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2013;24(11):1255-8. DOI: 10.1111/jce.12211 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.12211
7. N Lever, JD Ferguson, Y Bashir, KM Channon. Prolonged temporary cardiac pacing using subcutaneous tunnelled active-fixation permanent pacing leads. Heart. 2003;89(2): 209-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.89.2.209
8. Mosquera JAP, Baggio Jr JM, Germano PR, Aquino MVL, Dias AA. Estimulação cardíaca provisória em modo AAI. Uma alternativa segura. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2015;105(5 Supl.1): 22.
9. Giudici M. Pacemaker ‘Test Drive’ May Guide Patients Undecided About Permanent Implants. Medscape, Jun 24, 2015.
10. Percutaneous lead implantation connected to an external device in stimulation-dependent patients with systemic infection — a prospective and controlled study. M.U. Braun, T. Rauwolf, M. Bock, et al. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006;29;875-9.
11. Regional survey of temporary transvenous pacing procedures and complications. Betts TR. Postgrad Med J. 2003;79(934):463-5. PMID: 12954959
