Key result
The abstract discusses the use of long-term transcutaneous endocardial pacing compared to implanted units for the management of complete heart block, but provides no quantitative results.
The text highlights the historical trade-offs between transcutaneous and completely implanted endocardial pacing for complete heart block, specifically regarding infection risks and device maintenance.
Discussion of transcutaneous versus implanted pacing for complete heart block lacks quantitative data; leaves open comparative efficacy and safety.
When endocardial, pacing is used for the long-term treatment of heart block, the pacemaker unit may either be implanted subcutaneously or, alter-natively, left outside the body and connected to electrodes crossing the skin (transcutaneous pacing). Complete implantation of the pacing system is now widely favoured since it appears that this reduces the risks of blood stream infection and of loss of pacing due to movement of the catheter tip (Blue-stone et al., 1965). The consequence, however, has been an increase in the problems associated with electronic after-care and pacemaker replacement and the addition of a fresh hazard-sepsis around the implanted unit itself. Therefore, as many early patients at this hospital, paced with external units,
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Conway et al. (1969) studied complete heart block. transcutaneous endocardial pacing vs. implanted subcutaneous pacing was evaluated. The abstract discusses the use of long-term transcutaneous endocardial pacing compared to implanted units for the management of complete heart block, but provides no quantitative results.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: