Suppr超能文献

传统起搏器与无导线起搏器植入患者的生活质量:一项多中心观察性研究。

Quality of life of patients undergoing conventional vs leadless pacemaker implantation: A multicenter observational study.

机构信息

Cardiology Department, Hospital Álvaro Cunqueiro, Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain.

Cardiology Department, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain.

出版信息

J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Jan;31(1):330-336. doi: 10.1111/jce.14322. Epub 2019 Dec 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Leadless pacemakers (L-PM) are an emerging effective and safe technology that offer an alternative to conventional pacemakers (C-PM) for right ventricular stimulation. However, there is little information about their potential benefits for quality of life (QoL) in patients with L-PM. We compared QoL between patients with L-PM and C-PM.

METHODS

The study population comprised patients undergoing single chamber pacemaker implantation from December 2016 to March 2018. The SF-36 questionnaire was used to evaluate QoL at baseline and at 6 months of followup. We also used a questionnaire consisted of 10 specific questions related to the implant procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients (64 C-PM; 42 L-PM) were included. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups (C-PM vs L-PM), except for age (81.5 vs 77.3 years; P = .012) and diabetes (38% vs 17%; P = .021). Baseline SF-36 scores did not differ between the groups. At 6 months followup, patients in the L-PM group scored significantly higher on physical function (63 vs 42; P < .001), physical role (64 vs 36; P = .004), and mental health (75 vs 65; P = .017), even after adjusting for covariates. Pacemaker-related discomfort and physical restrictions were significantly lower for the L-PM group.

CONCLUSION

L-PM is associated with better QoL than C-PM in both physical and mental health. Patients undergoing L-PM implantation reported less procedure-related discomfort, physical restriction, and preoccupation.

摘要

背景

无导线起搏器(L-PM)是一种新兴的有效且安全的技术,为右心室刺激提供了传统起搏器(C-PM)的替代方案。然而,关于 L-PM 对患者生活质量(QoL)的潜在益处的信息很少。我们比较了 L-PM 和 C-PM 患者的 QoL。

方法

研究人群包括 2016 年 12 月至 2018 年 3 月期间接受单腔起搏器植入的患者。使用 SF-36 问卷在基线和 6 个月随访时评估 QoL。我们还使用了一个包含 10 个与植入程序相关的特定问题的问卷。

结果

共纳入 106 例患者(64 例 C-PM;42 例 L-PM)。两组患者的基线特征无差异(C-PM 与 L-PM),除年龄(81.5 岁 vs 77.3 岁;P=0.012)和糖尿病(38% vs 17%;P=0.021)外。两组患者的基线 SF-36 评分无差异。在 6 个月随访时,L-PM 组患者的身体功能(63 分 vs 42 分;P<0.001)、身体角色(64 分 vs 36 分;P=0.004)和心理健康(75 分 vs 65 分;P=0.017)评分显著更高,即使在调整了协变量后也是如此。L-PM 组患者与起搏器相关的不适和身体限制明显较低。

结论

与 C-PM 相比,L-PM 在身体和心理健康方面均与更好的 QoL 相关。接受 L-PM 植入的患者报告的程序相关不适、身体限制和担忧较少。

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