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