scholarly journals Baseline incision characteristics and early scar maturation indices following cardiac device implantation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nishaki Kiran Mehta ◽  
Katerina Morgaenko ◽  
David Haines ◽  
Edward Rojas‐Pena ◽  
Brittney Heard ◽  
...  
2008 ◽  
Vol 156 (2) ◽  
pp. 322-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Swindle ◽  
Thomas E. Burroughs ◽  
Mark A. Schnitzler ◽  
Paul J. Hauptman

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 797-806
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Wiechecka ◽  
Bartosz Wiechecki ◽  
Agnieszka Kapłon-Cieślicka ◽  
Agata Tymińska ◽  
Monika Budnik ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 126 (2) ◽  
pp. S148-S149
Author(s):  
Ravi Vijapurapu ◽  
Ana Jovanovic ◽  
Nigel Wheeldon ◽  
Abbasin Zegard ◽  
William Bradlow ◽  
...  

Heart ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 105 (23) ◽  
pp. 1825-1831 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravi Vijapurapu ◽  
Tarekegn Geberhiwot ◽  
Ana Jovanovic ◽  
Shanat Baig ◽  
Sabrina Nordin ◽  
...  

BackgroundFabry disease is a treatable X-linked condition leading to progressive cardiomyopathy, arrhythmia and premature death. Atrial and ventricular arrhythmias contribute significantly to adverse prognosis; however, guidance to determine which patients require cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is sparse. We aimed to evaluate indications for implantation practice in the UK and quantify device utilisation.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we included demographic, clinical and imaging data from patients in four of the largest UK Fabry centres. Ninety patients with Fabry disease were identified with CIEDs implanted between June 2001 and February 2018 (FD-CIED group). To investigate differences in clinical and imaging markers between those with and without devices, these patients were compared with 276 patients without a CIED (FD-control).ResultsIn the FD-CIED group, 92% of patients with permanent pacemakers but only 28% with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators had a class 1 indication for implantation. A further 44% of patients had defibrillators inserted for primary prevention outside of current guidance. The burden of arrhythmia requiring treatment in the FD-CIED group was high (asymptomatic atrial fibrillation:29%; non-sustained ventricular tachycardia requiring medical therapy alone: 26%; sustained ventricular tachycardia needing anti-tachycardia pacing/defibrillation: 28%). Those with devices were older, had greater LV mass, more scar tissue and larger atrial size.ConclusionsArrhythmias are common in Fabry patients. Those with cardiac devices had high rates of atrial fibrillation requiring anticoagulation and ventricular arrhythmia needing device treatment. These are as high as those in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, supporting the need for Fabry-specific indications for device implantation.


2014 ◽  
Vol 174 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Gatzoulis ◽  
Stefanos Archontakis ◽  
Dimitrios Tsiachris ◽  
George Lazaros ◽  
Theodoros Apostolopoulos ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 309
Author(s):  
Valay Parikh ◽  
Madhav Lavu ◽  
Venkat Lakshmi Kishan Vuddanda ◽  
Mohammad Jazayeri ◽  
Vidhya Reddy ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Denes ◽  
A Bence ◽  
T Ferenci ◽  
S Borbas ◽  
Z Som ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare, but life-threatening complication of cardiac device implantation. Despite recent preventive strategies, and advances in antimicrobial and surgical treatment, morbidity and mortality rates are still high. Aims The objective of our study was to assess the epidemiological characteristics, temporal tends and mortality rate of cardiac device related IE (CDRIE) in our high-volume, tertiary referral center. Methods retrospective data collection was performed from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2016. Thirty-day, 6-month and 1-year mortality was estimated, which were compared to left-sided native valve endocarditis (LSNIE). Patients administered between 2006 and 2010 and between 2011 and 2016 were compared to assess temporal trends. Results 465 cases of IE were administered, out of whom 54 patients had CDRIE (39 males [72%], mean age: 55.8 ±19 yrs; 4 VVI, 7 VDD, 7 VVI-ICD, 20 DDD, 5 DDD-ICD and 11 CRT devices; median time since first implantation: 1558 days [IQR: 470 days – 8.6 yrs]). The infection was caused by streptococci in 3 cases (5.5%), Staphylococci were the most prevalent infective agents (70%), S. aureus (SA) in 28 cases (52%, out of whom 10 were MRSA), coagulase negative Staphylococcus in 10 cases (18.5%), blood culture negative cases in 8 patients (15%), and in 5 cases other pathogens were responsible. 266 patients had LSNIE (201 males [75%], mean age: 54.4 ± 15.6 yrs). There was no difference between the two groups in age or in portion of males. Mortality rates were the same in CDRIE group compared to LSNIE group (30-day: 13% vs 13%, 6-month: 20% vs 25%, 1-year: 26% vs 29% and long-term: 44% vs 44%, ns resp.) Patients who died in the CDRIE group (n = 25) were older (64 yrs [IQR:59-71 yrs] vs 52 yrs [IQR: 27-69 yrs], p = 0.02), male sex was less common (52% vs 79%, p = 0.03), had lower ejection fraction (39.6 ±16.6% vs 54.6 ±14.5%, p < 0.001), had worse renal function (GFR: 46.3 ± 15.3 vs 60.2 ± 23.5 ml/min/1.73m2, p = 0.04), shorter time since first device implantation (2.1 yrs [IQR: 1.1-4.8 yrs] vs 6.7 yrs [4.1-12.9 yrs], p = 0.006), and CRT device implantation were more prevalent (32% vs 10%, p < 0.05). Patients admitted before 2011 (n = 22) did not differ from patients admitted after 2011 (n = 32) in terms of age, male gender, concomitant valve infection, pocket infection, or embolic event. The 30-day (0% vs 6%) and the 1-year mortality (18% vs 31%) were the same before and after 2011, but the 6-month mortality was better before 2011 (4.5% vs 31%, p = 0.01). CRT device implantation was more prevalent over time (5% vs 31%, p = 0.01), and SA infection became more frequent (36% vs 63%, p = 0.05) Conclusions During the last decade patients with CDRIE had a same survival as patients with LSNIE, every fourth patient died one year after the diagnosis. Almost three-quarter of the infections were caused by Staphylococci, and the portion of S. aureus infection increased over time.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 529-536
Author(s):  
Camilla Wistrand ◽  
Ulrica Nilsson ◽  
Ann-Sofie Sundqvist

Background: Clinically, patients often comment on the coolness of the skin disinfectant. However, scarce evidence is available regarding patients’ experience during intraoperative skin disinfection. Aims: The aim of this study was to describe and compare intraoperative patient experiences with preheated and room temperature skin disinfectant. Method: This randomised controlled trial included 220 patients undergoing cardiac device implantation. Patients allocated to preheated (36°C) or room temperature (20°C) chlorhexidine in 70% ethanol verbally answered an open-ended question regarding their experience with the skin disinfection. Results were assessed using a qualitative approach with comparative quantification. Results: The analysis resulted in nine categories describing the patients’ experiences with preheated and room temperature skin disinfection. Most of the patients described the skin disinfection process as a negative experience, which consisted of six categories: cold, smell, change in temperature, unpleasant, wet and painful. In addition, two neutral categories of response (nothing in particular and neither pleasant nor unpleasant) and one positive response (pleasant) emerged through the analysis. Preheated skin disinfection yielded significantly fewer negative experiences in the category cold (85% vs. 15%, P<0.0001) and significantly more positive experiences (66% vs. 34%, P<0.002). Neutral categories (neither pleasant nor unpleasant 65% vs. 35%, P=0.01, nothing in particular 74% vs. 26%, P<0.001) dominated after preheated skin disinfection. Conclusion: The use of preheated skin disinfection promotes a positive patient experience with skin disinfection. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02260479 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=preheated+skin+disinfection ).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document