Key result
In-office pacemaker follow-up detected significantly more complications per patient than transtelephonic follow-up for both single (5.1% vs 0.3%) and dual chamber (8.4% vs 1.0%) systems (P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does in-office follow-up improve the detection of pacemaker system complications compared to transtelephonic follow-up in patients with single or dual chamber pacemakers?
Observational (n=635)
Does in-office follow-up improve the detection of pacemaker system complications compared to transtelephonic follow-up in patients with single or dual chamber pacemakers?
p-value: p=<0.001
In-office pacemaker follow-up is significantly more effective than transtelephonic follow-up for detecting complications in both single and dual chamber systems.
Supports higher complication detection with in-office follow-up; leaves open optimal strategy pending randomized trials.
A study was undertaken to determine the most effective method of pacemaker follow-up in terms of the total number of complications detected and yield per follow-up in single and dual chamber pacing systems. The analysis involved 9,786 patient records from 635 patients. The records were reviewed with respect to method of follow-up, number of chambers paced, and complications detected. Complications included: oversensing, undersensing, noncapture, pocket and diaphragmatic stimulation, pacemaker mediated tachycardia, crosstalk, pulse generator malfunction, lead malfunction, infection/erosion, premature end of service, exit block, and other miscellaneous problems. Eight thousand two hundred eighty-eight of the 9,786 follow-ups were performed in the office while 1,498 were transtelephonic. Single chamber pacing systems were implanted in 329 patients and 306 were dual chamber systems. A total of 599 complications were detected. Analysis yielded a per patient complication rate of 5.1% (single chamber) and 8.4% (dual chamber) for in-office follow-up. This compared to a transtelephonic follow-up per patient complication rate of only 0.3% (single chamber) and 1.0% (dual chamber). In-office pacemaker follow-up is significantly more effective (P < 0.001) than transtelephonic follow-up in detecting both single and dual chamber pacemaker system complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
SWEESY et al. (1994) conducted an observational in Pacemaker system complications (n=635). In-office follow-up vs. Transtelephonic follow-up was evaluated on Per patient complication rate (p=<0.001). In-office pacemaker follow-up detected significantly more complications per patient than transtelephonic follow-up for both single (5.1% vs 0.3%) and dual chamber (8.4% vs 1.0%) systems (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: