scholarly journals Long-term Follow-up Study after Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients Aged 60 Years or Over with Sick Sinus syndrome.

1993 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 869-878 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kouji Chida ◽  
Shin-ichiro Ohkawa ◽  
Tamotsu Imai ◽  
Yasuko Suzuki ◽  
Kumiko Ishikawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sick Sinus Syndrome ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker ◽  
Follow Up Study ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

LONG-TERM FOLLOW-UP OF PATIENTS UNDERGOING PERMANENT PACEMAKER IMPLANTATION: GATA EXPERIENCE

2015 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 408
Author(s):  
Turgay Celik ◽  
Esra Goktas ◽  
Hasan Kabul ◽  
Sevket Balta ◽  
Atila Iyisoy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Cardiac Surgery: Indications and Long-Term Follow-Up

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
OFER MERIN ◽  
MICHAEL ILAN ◽  
AVRAHAM OREN ◽  
DANIEL FINK ◽  
MAHER DEEB ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

26 Permanent pacemaker implantation following cardiac surgery: indications and long term follow up

EP Europace ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5-6
Author(s):  
O. Merin ◽  
M. Ilan ◽  
D. Fink ◽  
A. Oren ◽  
M. Deeb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Long-Term Follow-up after Pacemaker Implantation in Sick Sinus Syndrome

1981 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
N.M. HEMEL ◽  
A.L.E. SGHAEPKENS RIEMPST ◽  
H. BAKEMA ◽  
C.A. SWENNE
Keyword(s):  
Sick Sinus Syndrome ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

P3738Clinical outcomes after early vs new generation TAVR device deployment

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
L Kalinczuk ◽  
Z Chmielak ◽  
K Zielinski ◽  
G S Mintz ◽  
M Dabrowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker ◽  
Early Generation ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Safety Endpoint ◽  
New Generation

Abstract Background Whether newer generation devices influence early and long-term outcomes post-TAVR in a real life setting is unknown. Aim To assess impact of an early vs a new generation transcatheter heart valves (THV) on clinical outcomes (30-day and -years) in a real life scenario. Methods Out of 445 consecutive pts treated between 8/2009 and 10/2017 within the single-center, prospective TAVR Registry, there were 432 [median 83.0 years of age, 63.4% female] with device success (97.1%) as per VARC-2. Early generation THV included: CoreValve; Edwards SAPIEN or SAPIEN XT. Newer generation devices included: Evolut-R/-Pro; Acurate neo; Engager, SAPIEN 3; or Lotus Edge Aortic Valve System. Results Median follow-up was 29.3 (15.8–53.1) months with 100% 1-year follow-up. Early generation devices were deployed in 60.6% (n=262) and new devices in 39.4% (n=170). Pts treated with newer devices had more peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and more frequent PCI history (17.1% vs 8.8%, p=0.015, and 35.3% vs 26.7%, p=0.068 respectively); other demographic and clinical data were alike. Baseline aortic valve area and LV ejection fraction were similar between early and newer devices. Pre-dilation was less frequent with newer devices (41.8% vs 70.6%, p<0.001), whereas THV size, contrast volume, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and post-procedure aortic valve gradients were similar. Moderate PVL assessed early post-TAVR was recognized with same frequency between earlier vs newer devices (28.2% vs 28.6%). An VARC-2 safety endpoint was recognized more often among pts treated with early vs new devices (30.5% vs 21.8%, p=0.028, respectively), with more frequent: 30-day death (3.8% vs 1.8%, p=0.177), life-threatening or disabling bleeding (8.4% vs 5.3%, p=0.181), major vascular complications (20.2% vs 15.3%, p=0.121), and new permanent pacemaker implantation (22.9% vs 10.0%, p=0.001) with early devices, but similar frequencies of stroke and acute kidney injury (1.9% vs 1.8% and 3.8% vs 5.9%, respectively). The 1-year mortality rates were similar (13.4% vs 13.5%, respectively), with similar estimated midterm (1–2 years) prognosis, but worse estimated very long-term follow-up for newer THV devices (fig 1). Figure 1 Conclusions Newer TAVR devices with smaller delivery system size, although deployed in pts with more PAD and PCI history, are associated with less frequent occurrence of an VARC-2 safety endpoint and less frequent permanent pacemaker implantation. The 1-year and midterm (1–2 years) prognosis are similar for early and newer devices, whereas the longer follow-up could have been influenced by intrinsic pt characteristics (more frequent PAD and history of PCI).

Long-term survival after permanent pacemaker implantation for sick sinus syndrome

1994 ◽  
Vol 74 (10) ◽  
pp. 1016-1020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert T. Tung ◽  
Win-Kuang Shen ◽  
David L. Hayes ◽  
Stephen C. Hammill ◽  
Kent R. Bailey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sick Sinus Syndrome ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker Implantation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document