Key result
Externalized endocardial electrodes for long-term pacing carried a higher risk of septicemias (9.4%) compared to implanted pacemakers (0.9%), and are only justified in special circumstances.
Why the study?
Does transvenous long-term pacing with an external pacemaker increase the risk of septicemia and mortality compared to implanted pacemakers in patients requiring pacing?
Population
1,324 patients requiring pacing
Comparison
Transvenous long-term pacing with an external… vs Implanted pacemakers with endocardial electrodes
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
1 month to 12 years
Authors
Loading...
Supports caution with externalized electrodes; leaves open randomized confirmation of septicemia risk.
Cohort (n=1,324)
Does transvenous long-term pacing with an external pacemaker increase the risk of septicemia and mortality compared to implanted pacemakers in patients requiring pacing?
Absolute Event Rate: 9.4% vs 0.9%
Transvenous long-term pacing with an external pacemaker carries a significantly higher risk of septicemia compared to implanted pacemakers and should be reserved for special circumstances.
Harold Siddons (1978) conducted a cohort in Patients requiring pacing (n=1,324). Externalized endocardial electrodes vs. Implanted pacemakers with endocardial electrodes was evaluated on Septicemias. Externalized endocardial electrodes for long-term pacing carried a higher risk of septicemias (9.4%) compared to implanted pacemakers (0.9%), and are only justified in special circumstances.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: