What question did this study set out to answer?

To assess long-term patient survival, clinical indications, and device reliability associated with evolving cardiac pacemaker technologies across a nine-year clinical experience.

January 1, 1984Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

Nine‐year Experience during 1973–1982 with 1,060 Pacemakers in 805 Patients

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

What are the long-term survival and device reliability outcomes for patients receiving pacemakers, particularly comparing the mercury-zinc and lithium battery eras?

Population

805 patients receiving 1,060 pacemakers between 1973-1982 for indications including sick sinus syndrome and…

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

9 years (almost 28,000 patient pacing months)

Authors

JHJohn S. HansonWalgreens (United States)MGMichael E. GrantRutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

High early post-implant mortality in older males warrants monitoring; leaves open whether contemporary devices extend lithium-era survival gains.

Key Points

To assess long-term patient survival, clinical indications, and device reliability associated with evolving cardiac pacemaker technologies across a nine-year clinical experience.
Reviewed 1,060 pacemaker implantations across 805 patients totaling nearly 28,000 patient pacing months between 1973 and 1982.
Evaluated mortality trends across patient demographics, clinical conditions including sick sinus syndrome and complete heart block, and transitions from mercury-zinc to lithium battery systems.
Advanced age at implantation and male sex were significantly associated with decreased survival, alongside high overall mortality rates within the first one to two years post-implant.
The technological transition from mercury-zinc batteries to lithium power cells resulted in significant improvements in device reliability and patient survival profiles.

Structured PICO

What are the long-term survival and device reliability outcomes for patients receiving pacemakers, particularly comparing the mercury-zinc and lithium battery eras?

Population

805 patients receiving 1,060 pacemakers between 1973-1982 for indications including sick sinus syndrome and complete heart block.

Intervention

Pacemaker implantation (including the transition from mercury-zinc batteries to lithium power cells and other new technology).

Outcome

Patient survival/mortalityhard clinical

The historical transition from mercury-zinc to lithium batteries in pacemakers was associated with significant improvements in device reliability and patient survival.

Cite This Study

Hanson et al. (1984) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a84811c7e95b97f4e730798 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1984.tb04860.x

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

High early post-implant mortality in older males warrants monitoring; leaves open whether contemporary devices extend lithium-era survival gains.

Nine‐year Experience during 1973–1982 with 1,060 Pacemakers in 805 Patients

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Nine‐year Experience during 1973–1982 with 1,060 Pacemakers in 805 Patients

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider