Yaqub Yasir, Perez-Verdia Alejandro, Jenkins Leigh A, Sehli Shermila, Paige Robert L, Nugent Kenneth M
Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Science Center, USA.
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Texas Tech University, Lubbock Texas, USA.
Cardiol Res. 2012 Feb;3(1):1-7. doi: 10.4021/cr111w. Epub 2012 Jan 20.
Temporary pacemakers (TP) are used in emergency situations for severe bradyarrhythmias secondary to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and to non-AMI related cardiac disorders. TP have been studied previously in AMI patients treated with thrombolytic therapy; limited information is available on current outcomes in AMI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.
We reviewed the indications, complications, and mortality associated with TP insertion over a four year period (2003 - 2007) at a university hospital.
Seventy-three temporary pacemakers were inserted (47 men, 26 women) during this period. The mean age was 65.2 years. TP were used in 29 AMI patients (39.7 % of total) and 44 non-AMI patients (60.3% of total). The duration of TP use was 2.6 ± 0.4 days in the whole cohort, 2.46 % of all AMI patients (29/1180) admitted during this period required a TP. Six of these patients requiring a TP required a permanent pacemaker. Eight patients with AMI and a TP died (27.6%). In contrast 8.9 % of AMI patients not requiring a TP died (P < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the AMI and non-AMI groups in the duration of temporary pacing (2.4 ± 0.6 days vs. 2.8 ± 0.4 days), in complications (27.6% vs. 29.5%), or in mortality (27.6% vs. 15.9%). The need for a permanent pacemaker (PPM) differed significantly between the AMI and non-AMI patients (20.7% vs. 54.5%; P < 0.05).
Our results indicate that AMI patients infrequently require a TP and that approximately 20% of these patients require a PPM. These results suggest that early revascularization of the conduction system with current interventional techniques has decreased the need for TP in AMI patients. However, this group requires more intensive monitoring as the mortality rate in this group of patients is significantly higher than the other AMI patients not requiring TP.
临时起搏器(TP)用于治疗急性心肌梗死(AMI)继发的严重缓慢性心律失常以及非AMI相关的心脏疾病等紧急情况。此前已对接受溶栓治疗的AMI患者使用TP的情况进行过研究;而关于接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的AMI患者目前的治疗结果,相关信息有限。
我们回顾了一所大学医院在四年期间(2003 - 2007年)与TP植入相关的适应证、并发症及死亡率。
在此期间共植入73台临时起搏器(男性47例,女性26例)。平均年龄为65.2岁。29例AMI患者(占总数的39.7%)和44例非AMI患者(占总数的60.3%)使用了TP。整个队列中TP的使用时长为2.6±0.4天,在此期间收治的所有AMI患者中有2.46%(29/1180)需要使用TP。其中6例需要TP的患者后来需要植入永久性起搏器。8例植入TP的AMI患者死亡(27.6%)。相比之下,未使用TP的AMI患者死亡率为8.9%(P<0.01)。AMI组和非AMI组在临时起搏时长(2.4±0.6天对2.8±0.4天)、并发症发生率(27.6%对29.5%)或死亡率(27.6%对15.9%)方面无统计学显著差异。AMI患者和非AMI患者对永久性起搏器(PPM)的需求差异显著(20.7%对54.5%;P<0.05)。
我们的结果表明,AMI患者很少需要使用TP,且这些患者中约20%需要植入PPM。这些结果提示,采用当前的介入技术对传导系统进行早期血管重建已减少了AMI患者对TP的需求。然而,由于该组患者的死亡率显著高于其他不需要TP的AMI患者,因此这组患者需要更密切地监测。