Suppr超能文献

无导线起搏器在血液透析患者中的植入:Micra 经导管起搏器的经验。

Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Hemodialysis Patients: Experience With the Micra Transcatheter Pacemaker.

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Section of Electrophysiology, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia.

Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Tours-Hôpital Trousseau, Tours, France.

出版信息

JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Feb;5(2):162-170. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2018.12.008. Epub 2019 Jan 30.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to report periprocedural outcomes and intermediate-term follow-up of hemodialysis patients undergoing Micra implantation.

BACKGROUND

Leadless pacemakers may be preferred in patients with limited vascular access and high-infection risk, such as patients on hemodialysis.

METHODS

Patients on hemodialysis at the time of Micra implantation attempt (n = 201 of 2,819; 7%) from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study investigational device exemption trial, Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study Protocol, and Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, periprocedural outcomes, and intermediate-term follow-up were summarized.

RESULTS

Patients on hemodialysis at the time of Micra implantation attempt were on average 70.5 ± 13.5 years of age and 59.2% were male. The dialysis patients commonly had hypertension (80%), diabetes (61%), coronary artery disease (39%), and congestive heart failure (27%), and 72% had a condition that the implanting physician felt precluded the use of a transvenous pacemaker. Micra was successfully implanted in 197 patients (98.0%). Reasons for unsuccessful implantation included inadequate thresholds (n = 2) and pericardial effusion (n = 2). The median implantation time was 27 min (interquartile range: 20 to 39 min). There were 3 procedure-related deaths: 1 due to metabolic acidosis following a prolonged procedure duration in a patient undergoing concomitant atrioventricular nodal ablation and 2 deaths occurred in patients who needed surgical repair after perforation. Average follow-up was 6.2 months (range 0 to 26.7 months). No patients had a device-related infection or required device removal because of bacteremia.

CONCLUSIONS

Leadless pacemakers represent an effective pacing option in this challenging patient population on chronic hemodialysis. The risk of infection appears low with an acceptable safety profile. (Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study; NCT02004873; Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study Protocol; NCT02488681; Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry; NCT02536118).

摘要

目的

本研究旨在报告行 Micra 植入术的血液透析患者的围手术期结局和中期随访结果。

背景

对于血管通路有限且感染风险高(如血液透析患者)的患者,无导线起搏器可能是首选。

方法

来自 Micra 经导管起搏研究(试验注册号:NCT02004873)、Micra 经导管起搏系统继续接入研究方案(试验注册号:NCT02488681)和 Micra 经导管起搏系统上市后注册研究的 2819 例植入尝试患者中,有 201 例(7%)为血液透析患者。分析纳入了这些患者的基线特征、围手术期结局和中期随访数据。

结果

行 Micra 植入尝试的血液透析患者平均年龄为 70.5±13.5 岁,59.2%为男性。这些透析患者常见的合并症包括高血压(80%)、糖尿病(61%)、冠状动脉疾病(39%)和充血性心力衰竭(27%),72%的患者存在植入医师认为会妨碍使用经静脉起搏器的情况。197 例(98.0%)患者成功植入了 Micra。植入失败的原因包括阈值不足(n=2)和心包积液(n=2)。中位植入时间为 27 分钟(四分位距:20 至 39 分钟)。有 3 例与操作相关的死亡事件:1 例是在房室结消融的过程中由于操作时间延长导致代谢性酸中毒,2 例是在穿孔后需要手术修复的患者中发生的。平均随访时间为 6.2 个月(0 至 26.7 个月)。没有患者因感染导致设备相关感染或因菌血症需要移除设备。

结论

在接受慢性血液透析的这一具有挑战性的患者群体中,无导线起搏器是一种有效的起搏选择。感染风险似乎较低,具有可接受的安全性。(Micra 经导管起搏研究;NCT02004873;Micra 经导管起搏系统继续接入研究方案;NCT02488681;Micra 经导管起搏系统上市后注册研究;NCT02536118)。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验