Heart Rhythm Centre, Harefield Hospital, Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesex, UK.
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011 Nov;30(11):1257-65. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2011.05.010. Epub 2011 Jul 23.
Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM) early after cardiac transplantation has been shown not to predict a worse outcome. However, the requirement for pacing late after transplantation and its prognostic implications are not fully known. We describe the clinical indications, risk factors and long-term outcome in patients who required pacing early and late after transplantation.
The transplant database, medical records and pacing database/records were reviewed for all patients undergoing de novo orthotopic cardiac transplantation (n = 389) at our institution between January 1995 and May 2006.
A total of 48 patients (12.3%) received a pacemaker after transplantation. Of these patients, 30 were paced early, pre-hospital discharge (25 ± 19 days post-transplantation), and 18 patients had late pacing (3.0 ± 3.3 years post-transplantation). There were no differences in clinical characteristics, use of anti-arrhythmic drugs or length-of-stay post-transplantation between early and late groups. Early indications for pacing were more often sino-atrial (SA) disease (24 of 30, 80%), whereas atrio-ventricular (AV) disease was more likely to occur later (p = 0.03). Risk factors for PPM included use of biatrial anastomosis (p = 0.001) and donor age (p = 0.002). Prior rejection was a univariate but not multivariate (p = 0.09) predictor of the need for PPM. Development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy was not predictive. There was no significant difference in mortality between late and early PPM patients or between late PPM patients and the non-paced patients who survived transplantation and initial stay.
Patients who required PPM late after orthotopic cardiac transplantation had a prognosis comparable to those paced early and those who did not require PPM. The independent risk factors for PPM were biatrial anastomosis and increasing donor age. SA-nodal dysfunction as an indication for PPM was more prevalent early after transplantation, whereas atrioventricular (AV) disease more commonly presented late. The requirement for pacing late after transplantation was not associated with rejection or cardiac allograft vasculopathy.
心脏移植后早期植入永久性起搏器并未显示预后更差。然而,移植后晚期起搏的需求及其预后意义尚不完全清楚。我们描述了在我们机构接受新的原位心脏移植(n = 389)的患者中,早期和晚期需要起搏的临床指征、危险因素和长期结果。
回顾了我们机构 1995 年 1 月至 2006 年 5 月期间所有接受新的原位心脏移植的患者的移植数据库、病历和起搏数据库/记录。
共有 48 名患者(12.3%)在移植后接受了起搏器。其中 30 例在住院期间早期(移植后 25 ± 19 天)需要起搏,18 例在晚期(移植后 3.0 ± 3.3 年)需要起搏。早期和晚期起搏组之间的临床特征、抗心律失常药物的使用或移植后住院时间无差异。早期起搏的指征更多的是窦房结(SA)疾病(30 例中的 24 例,80%),而房室(AV)疾病更可能发生在晚期(p = 0.03)。起搏器植入的危险因素包括使用双心房吻合术(p = 0.001)和供体年龄(p = 0.002)。既往排斥反应是单变量但不是多变量(p = 0.09)起搏器植入的预测因素。移植后发生的心脏移植物血管病并不具有预测性。晚期起搏患者与早期起搏患者以及无需起搏的移植和初始住院存活患者的死亡率无显著差异。
心脏移植后晚期需要起搏器的患者与早期起搏患者和无需起搏的患者的预后相似。起搏器植入的独立危险因素是双心房吻合术和供体年龄的增加。SA 结功能障碍作为起搏的指征在移植后早期更为常见,而房室(AV)疾病更常见于晚期。移植后晚期起搏的需求与排斥反应或心脏移植物血管病无关。