Walker Fiona, Siu Samuel C, Woods Shane, Cameron Douglas A, Webb Gary D, Harris Louise
Toronto Congenital Cardiac Centre for Adults, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 May 19;43(10):1894-901. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.12.044.
The purpose of this retrospective study was to define long-term outcomes after pacemaker therapy in adults with congenital heart disease (CHD).
Adults with CHD represent a unique and expanding population. Many will require pacemaker or implantable defibrillator therapy, with a lifelong need for re-intervention and follow-up. They pose technical and management challenges not encountered in other groups receiving pacing, and the complication and re-intervention rates specific to this population are not well-defined.
We reviewed outcomes of 168 adults with CHD, 89 females, mean age 40 years, in whom a pacemaker or anti-tachycardia device was implanted.
Mean age at implant was 28 years with mean pacing duration 11 years at follow-up (range, 0.5 to 38.0). Seventy-two (42%) received initial dual-chamber devices and remained in this mode, while 23 (14%) went from ventricular to dual-chamber pacing in follow-up. Initial mode of pacing did not have a significant effect on subsequent atrial arrhythmia. Patients receiving an initial epicardial system were younger than those paced endocardially (17 +/- 12 years vs. 35 +/- 16 years, p < 0.001) and more likely to undergo re-intervention (p = 0.019). Difficulty with vascular access was encountered in 25 patients (15%), while 45 (27%) experienced lead-related complications. No significant predictors of lead complications were identified.
Lead complications were not significantly different for epicardial versus endocardial, nor physiologic versus ventricular pacing, but a trend toward improved lead survival in patients receiving endocardial leads at first implant was observed. Adults with CHD remain at risk for atrial arrhythmias regardless of pacing mode.
本回顾性研究的目的是确定先天性心脏病(CHD)成人患者接受起搏器治疗后的长期预后。
CHD成人患者是一个独特且不断扩大的群体。许多患者需要起搏器或植入式除颤器治疗,并且终生需要再次干预和随访。他们带来了其他接受起搏治疗的群体未遇到的技术和管理挑战,并且该人群特有的并发症和再次干预率尚未明确界定。
我们回顾了168例CHD成人患者的预后情况,其中89例女性,平均年龄40岁,这些患者植入了起搏器或抗心动过速装置。
植入时的平均年龄为28岁,随访时的平均起搏时间为11年(范围为0.5至38.0年)。72例(42%)最初接受双腔起搏器并维持该模式,而23例(14%)在随访中从心室起搏转换为双腔起搏。初始起搏模式对随后的房性心律失常没有显著影响。最初接受心外膜系统起搏的患者比接受心内膜起搏的患者更年轻(17±12岁对35±16岁,p<0.001),并且更有可能接受再次干预(p=0.019)。25例患者(15%)遇到血管通路困难,45例(27%)出现与导线相关的并发症。未发现导线并发症的显著预测因素。
心外膜起搏与心内膜起搏、生理性起搏与心室起搏的导线并发症无显著差异,但观察到首次植入心内膜导线的患者导线生存率有改善趋势。无论起搏模式如何,CHD成人患者仍有发生房性心律失常的风险。