A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Ventricular lead redundancy to prevent cardiovascular events and sudden death from lead fracture in pacemaker-dependent children. | LitMetric

Background: Children requiring a permanent epicardial pacemaker (PM) traditionally have a single lead placed on the right ventricle. Lead failure in pacemaker-dependent (PMD) children, however, can result in cardiovascular events (CVEs) and death.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine if redundant ventricular lead systems (RVLS) can safeguard against CVE and death in PMD children.

Methods: This was a single-center study of PMD patients undergoing placement of RVLS from 2002-2013. Patients ≤21 years of age who were PMD were included. Patients with a biventricular (BiV) system placed for standard resynchronization indications were excluded. RVLS patients were compared to PMD patients with only a single pacing lead on the ventricle (SiV).

Results: Seven hundred sixty-nine patients underwent PM/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement with 76 BiV implants; 49 patients (6%) were PMD. Thirteen patients underwent implantation of an RVLS. There was no difference between the RVLS group (n = 13) and SiV PMD control group (n = 24) with regard to age (RVLS 9.5 ± 5.8 years vs SiV 9.4 ± 6.7 years, P = .52), weight (RVLS 38.2 ± 32.6 kg vs SiV 35.2 ± 29.3 kg, P = .62), indication for pacing, procedural complications, or time to follow-up. There were 2 lead fractures (17%) in the RVLS group (mean follow-up 3.8 ± 2.9 years), with no deaths or presentations with CVE. The SiV control group had 3 lead fractures (13%) (mean follow-up 2.8 ± 2.9 years), with no deaths, but all 3 patients presented with CVE and required emergent PM placement.

Conclusion: RVLS systems should be considered in children who are PMD and require permanent epicardial pacing. BiV pacing and RVLS may decrease the risk of CVE in the event of lead failure in PMD patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.09.056DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pmd patients
12
rvls
10
patients
10
pmd
9
ventricular lead
8
cardiovascular events
8
lead
8
permanent epicardial
8
lead ventricle
8
lead failure
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!