Why the study?
Does follow-up in a pacemaker clinic prevent sudden pacing failures in patients with implanted pacemakers?
Does follow-up in a pacemaker clinic prevent sudden pacing failures in patients with implanted pacemakers?
Routine follow-up in a pacemaker clinic using photoanalysis of generator impulses effectively detects most pacing failures, though sudden failures still contribute to mortality.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Pacemaker clinic follow-up detects most failures yet sudden events persist; leaves open whether intensified monitoring prevents mortality.
Two hundredpatients with implantedpacemakers werefollowed in a pacemaker clinic over a period of 3years. The follow-up times ranged from I to 36 months, with a mean of 22 months. The material represents 366 patient-years ofpacing and 361 pacemakers. One hundred and twenty replacements were done. Most of these were elective (93%) and based on gradual deterioration of the pacing detected by photoanalysis of the gener- ator impulse. Of the single variables the duration of the impulse and the discharge rate were most revealing; recording changes in these two variables led to 96 per cent failure detection. There were 28 deaths within the follow-up time: 3 of them were related to pacing failure and 5 were possibly so. When these sudden fatal events were added to the sudden nonfatal failures not detected by the routine control system a I6 per cent failure rate of detection emerged. The total annual mortality was 7.7 per cent. The mortality caused by pacing failures was 2 2 per cent per annum.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matthias Frick (1973) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: