Key result
Temporary transvenous electrical pacing in acute myocardial infarction was associated with a lower cumulative survival rate at 25-36 months compared to non-paced patients (25% vs 53%; p<0.01).
Why the study?
Does temporary transvenous electrical pacing affect the long-term survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by severe bradycardia or heart block?
Cohort (n=404)
Does temporary transvenous electrical pacing affect the long-term survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by severe bradycardia or heart block?
Absolute Event Rate: 25% vs 53%
p-value: p=<0.01
Patients with acute myocardial infarction requiring temporary transvenous pacing have a significantly poorer long-term prognosis (25% survival at 25-36 months) compared to non-paced patients, likely reflecting more extensive myocardial damage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Temporary pacing in AMI marks patients with halved long-term survival; leaves open causality versus marker of extensive damage.
Edhag et al. (1973) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (n=404). Temporary transvenous electrical pacing vs. Non-paced patients was evaluated on Cumulative survival rate after 25-36 months (p=<0.01). Temporary transvenous electrical pacing in acute myocardial infarction was associated with a lower cumulative survival rate at 25-36 months compared to non-paced patients (25% vs 53%; p<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: