• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

无导线起搏与单腔经静脉起搏在血液透析患者中的疗效比较。

Improved outcomes with leadless vs. single-chamber transvenous pacemaker in haemodialysis patients.

机构信息

Department of Nephrology, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Nancy, Rue du Morvan, 54500 Vandoeuvre-Les-Nancy, France.

Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Nancy, Inserm, Université de Lorraine, Clinical Investigation Centre-Clinical Epidemiology, Nancy, France.

出版信息

Europace. 2024 Nov 1;26(11). doi: 10.1093/europace/euae257.

DOI:10.1093/europace/euae257
PMID:39351810
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11542626/
Abstract

AIMS

Cardiac conduction disorders are common in haemodialysis patients, with a relatively high rate of pacemaker implantations. Pacemaker-related complications, especially lead infections and central venous stenosis, pose significant challenges in this population. This study aims to compare single-chamber leadless pacemaker to single-chamber transvenous pacemakers in terms of survival and related complications in haemodialysis patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective study included adult haemodialysis patients who received a first single-chamber transvenous or leadless pacemaker between January 2017 and December 2020. Data were obtained from the French national REIN registry matched to the national health databases (Système National des Données de Santé). Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics. Survival and complications were compared between groups by Cox regression and by competitive risk models, respectively. One hundred and seventy-eight patients were included after propensity score matching, with 89 patients in each group. The median follow-up time was 24 (range 7-37) months. Leadless pacemakers were associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality rates compared to transvenous pacemakers [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.47-0.99)]. Device-related infections are significantly lower with leadless pacemakers throughout the follow-up period (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.86). Leadless pacemaker recipients also required fewer vascular access interventions [odds ratio 0.53, 95% CI (0.33-0.68)] on arteriovenous fistula.

CONCLUSION

With the limitations of its observational design, this study suggests that leadless pacemakers are associated with a lower rate of complications and better survival as compared with transvenous VVI pacemakers in haemodialysis patients, supporting to consider their preferential use in this population.

摘要

目的

血液透析患者常发生心脏传导障碍,需要植入起搏器的比例相对较高。起搏器相关并发症,特别是导线感染和中心静脉狭窄,给该人群带来了重大挑战。本研究旨在比较无导线单腔起搏器和单腔经静脉起搏器在血液透析患者中的生存率和相关并发症。

方法和结果

这项回顾性研究纳入了 2017 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月期间接受首次单腔经静脉或无导线起搏器的成年血液透析患者。数据来自法国国家 REIN 登记处,与国家健康数据库(Système National des Données de Santé)相匹配。采用倾向评分匹配来平衡基线特征。通过 Cox 回归和竞争风险模型分别比较两组的生存率和并发症。经过倾向评分匹配后,共纳入 178 例患者,每组 89 例。中位随访时间为 24 个月(范围 7-37 个月)。与经静脉起搏器相比,无导线起搏器与全因死亡率显著降低相关[风险比(HR)=0.68,95%置信区间(CI)(0.47-0.99)]。在整个随访期间,无导线起搏器的器械相关感染率显著降低(HR 0.43,95% CI 0.21-0.86)。无导线起搏器受者在动静脉瘘上需要进行血管通路干预的次数也较少[比值比 0.53,95% CI(0.33-0.68)]。

结论

鉴于其观察性设计的局限性,本研究表明,与血液透析患者中的经静脉 VVI 起搏器相比,无导线起搏器与较低的并发症发生率和更好的生存率相关,支持在该人群中优先考虑使用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5baf/11542626/0b5a54245226/euae257f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5baf/11542626/5093150bbc65/euae257_ga.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5baf/11542626/2cdb2c5c1efc/euae257f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5baf/11542626/0b5a54245226/euae257f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5baf/11542626/5093150bbc65/euae257_ga.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5baf/11542626/2cdb2c5c1efc/euae257f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5baf/11542626/0b5a54245226/euae257f2.jpg

相似文献

1
Improved outcomes with leadless vs. single-chamber transvenous pacemaker in haemodialysis patients.无导线起搏与单腔经静脉起搏在血液透析患者中的疗效比较。
Europace. 2024 Nov 1;26(11). doi: 10.1093/europace/euae257.
2
Comparison of Patient Outcomes Between Leadless vs Transvenous Pacemakers Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.经导管主动脉瓣置换术后无导线起搏器与经静脉起搏器患者结局的比较。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2024 Aug 12;17(15):1779-1791. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2024.05.030. Epub 2024 Jul 17.
3
Leadless pacemaker versus transvenous single-chamber pacemaker therapy: A propensity score-matched analysis.无导线起搏器与经静脉单腔起搏器治疗:倾向评分匹配分析。
Heart Rhythm. 2018 Sep;15(9):1387-1393. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.04.027. Epub 2018 Apr 28.
4
Leadless vs. transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacing in the Micra CED study: 2-year follow-up.无导线与经静脉单腔心室起搏 Micra CED 研究:2 年随访。
Eur Heart J. 2022 Mar 21;43(12):1207-1215. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab767.
5
Contemporaneous Comparison of Outcomes Among Patients Implanted With a Leadless vs Transvenous Single-Chamber Ventricular Pacemaker.同期比较无导线与经静脉单腔心室起搏器植入患者的结局。
JAMA Cardiol. 2021 Oct 1;6(10):1187-1195. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.2621.
6
Comparative study of acute and mid-term complications with leadless and transvenous cardiac pacemakers.无导线与经静脉心脏起搏器的急性与中期并发症比较研究。
Heart Rhythm. 2018 Jul;15(7):1023-1030. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.04.022.
7
Two-year outcomes of leadless vs. transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacemaker in high-risk subgroups.无导线与经静脉单腔心室起搏器在高危亚组中的两年结果。
Europace. 2023 Mar 30;25(3):1041-1050. doi: 10.1093/europace/euad016.
8
Two-year outcomes of Micra AV leadless pacemakers in the Micra AV CED study.Micra AV 无导线起搏器在 Micra AV CED 研究中的 2 年结果。
Europace. 2024 Nov 1;26(11). doi: 10.1093/europace/euae273.
9
Leadless versus transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacemakers: 3 year follow-up of the Micra CED study.无导线与经静脉单腔心室起搏器:Micra CED 研究 3 年随访。
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2023 Apr;34(4):1015-1023. doi: 10.1111/jce.15863. Epub 2023 Feb 23.
10
Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and complications of leadless pacemaker and traditional transvenous pacemaker implantation.无导线起搏器与传统经静脉起搏器植入的住院期间结局和并发症比较。
Europace. 2023 Aug 2;25(9). doi: 10.1093/europace/euad269.

引用本文的文献

1
Leadless vs. Transvenous Pacemakers in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.终末期肾病患者中无导线起搏器与经静脉起搏器的比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Biomedicines. 2025 Aug 9;13(8):1952. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines13081952.
2
Pacemakers in Modern Cardiology and Their Transition From Traditional to Leadless Models.现代心脏病学中的起搏器及其从传统模式向无导线模式的转变。
Cureus. 2025 Apr 13;17(4):e82182. doi: 10.7759/cureus.82182. eCollection 2025 Apr.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and complications of leadless pacemaker and traditional transvenous pacemaker implantation.无导线起搏器与传统经静脉起搏器植入的住院期间结局和并发症比较。
Europace. 2023 Aug 2;25(9). doi: 10.1093/europace/euad269.
2
[REIN and international collaboration].[强化与国际合作]
Nephrol Ther. 2023 Aug 28;18(S2):90-93. doi: 10.1016/S1769-7255(22)00576-4.
3
Cardiac pacing and lead devices management: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal.心脏起搏和导联设备管理:EP Europace 杂志 25 年的研究成果。
Europace. 2023 Aug 25;25(8). doi: 10.1093/europace/euad202.
4
Two-year outcomes of leadless vs. transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacemaker in high-risk subgroups.无导线与经静脉单腔心室起搏器在高危亚组中的两年结果。
Europace. 2023 Mar 30;25(3):1041-1050. doi: 10.1093/europace/euad016.
5
An overview of propensity score matching methods for clustered data.基于聚类数据的倾向评分匹配方法概述。
Stat Methods Med Res. 2023 Apr;32(4):641-655. doi: 10.1177/09622802221133556. Epub 2022 Nov 25.
6
Risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic device infections: a nationwide Danish study.心脏植入式电子设备感染的危险因素:一项全国性丹麦研究。
Eur Heart J. 2022 Dec 14;43(47):4946-4956. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac576.
7
Leadless vs. transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacing in the Micra CED study: 2-year follow-up.无导线与经静脉单腔心室起搏 Micra CED 研究:2 年随访。
Eur Heart J. 2022 Mar 21;43(12):1207-1215. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab767.
8
Contemporaneous Comparison of Outcomes Among Patients Implanted With a Leadless vs Transvenous Single-Chamber Ventricular Pacemaker.同期比较无导线与经静脉单腔心室起搏器植入患者的结局。
JAMA Cardiol. 2021 Oct 1;6(10):1187-1195. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.2621.
9
A Review of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections for the Practicing Electrophysiologist.心脏植入式电子设备感染:临床电生理医师实用综述。
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Jun;7(6):811-824. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.03.021.
10
KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access: 2019 Update.KDIGO 临床实践指南:血管通路 2019 更新版。
Am J Kidney Dis. 2020 Apr;75(4 Suppl 2):S1-S164. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.12.001. Epub 2020 Mar 12.