Boriani Giuseppe, Bertini Matteo, Saporito Davide, Belotti Giuseppina, Quartieri Fabio, Tomasi Corrado, Pucci Angelo, Boggian Giulio, Mazzocca Gian Franco, Giorgi Davide, Diotallevi Paolo, Sassone Biagio, Grassini Diego, Gargaro Alessio, Biffi Mauro
Cardiology Division, Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Policlinico di Modena, Modena, Italy.
Institute of Cardiology, S.Orsola University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Clin Cardiol. 2018 Sep;41(9):1185-1191. doi: 10.1002/clc.23003. Epub 2018 Sep 22.
The rate of device replacement in pacemaker recipients has not been investigated in detail.
Current pacemakers with automatic management of atrial and ventricular pacing output provide sufficient longevity to minimize replacement rate.
We considered a cohort of 542 pacemaker patients (age 78 ± 9 years, 60% male, 71% de-novo implants) and combined 1-month projected device longevity with survival data and late complication rate in a 3-state Markov model tested in several Monte Carlo computer simulations. Predetermined subgroups were: age < or ≥ 70; gender; primary indication to cardiac pacing.
At the 1-month follow-up the reported projected device longevity was 153 ± 45 months. With these values the proportion of patients expected to undergo a device replacement due to battery depletion was higher in patients aged <70 (49.9%, range 32.1%-61.9%) than in age ≥70 (24.5%, range 19.9%-28.8%); in women (39.9%, range 30.8%-48.1%) than in men (32.0%, range 24.7%-37.5%); in sinus node dysfunction (41.5%, range 30.2%-53.0%) than in atrio-ventricular block (33.5%, range 27.1-38.8%) or atrial fibrillation with bradycardia (27.9%, range 18.5%-37.0%). The expected replacement rate was inversely related to the assumed device longevity and depended on age class: a 50% increase in battery longevity implied a 5% reduction of replacement rates in patients aged ≥80.
With current device technology 1/4 of pacemaker recipients aged ≥70 are expected to receive a second device in their life. Replacement rate depends on age, gender, and primary indication owing to differences in patients' survival expectancy. Additional improvements in device service time may modestly impact expected replacement rates especially in patients ≥80 years.
尚未对起搏器植入者的设备更换率进行详细研究。
目前具有心房和心室起搏输出自动管理功能的起搏器具有足够长的使用寿命,可将更换率降至最低。
我们纳入了542名起搏器患者队列(年龄78±9岁,60%为男性,71%为初次植入),并在多个蒙特卡洛计算机模拟中测试的三状态马尔可夫模型中,将1个月的预计设备使用寿命与生存数据和晚期并发症发生率相结合。预定的亚组为:年龄<或≥70岁;性别;心脏起搏的主要适应证。
在1个月的随访中,报告的预计设备使用寿命为153±45个月。基于这些数值,<70岁患者因电池耗尽而预计进行设备更换的比例(49.9%,范围32.1%-61.9%)高于≥70岁患者(24.5%,范围19.9%-28.8%);女性(39.9%,范围30.8%-48.1%)高于男性(32.0%,范围24.7%-37.5%);窦房结功能障碍患者(41.5%,范围30.2%-53.0%)高于房室传导阻滞患者(33.5%,范围27.1%-38.8%)或伴有心动过缓的心房颤动患者(27.9%,范围18.5%-37.0%)。预期更换率与假定的设备使用寿命呈负相关,并取决于年龄组:电池使用寿命增加50%意味着≥80岁患者的更换率降低5%。
采用当前的设备技术,预计≥70岁的起搏器植入者中有四分之一在其一生中会接受第二次设备植入。由于患者生存预期的差异,更换率取决于年龄、性别和主要适应证。设备服务时间的进一步改善可能会对预期更换率产生适度影响,尤其是在≥80岁的患者中。