Key result
Multiprogrammable pacemakers significantly reduced the need for secondary surgical intervention for malfunctions compared to nonprogrammable pacemakers (3.1% vs 9.5%; p<0.01).
Why the study?
Does multiprogrammable VVI pacing reduce the need for secondary surgical intervention for pacing system malfunctions compared to nonprogrammable pacing in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation?
Cohort (n=374)
Does multiprogrammable VVI pacing reduce the need for secondary surgical intervention for pacing system malfunctions compared to nonprogrammable pacing in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 3.1% vs 9.5%
p-value: p=<0.01
Multiprogrammable VVI pacemakers significantly reduce the need for secondary surgical interventions to correct pacing system malfunctions compared to nonprogrammable pacemakers.
May support multiprogrammable device selection to reduce reinterventions; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Analysis of pacing system malfunctions was performed in 374 patients at initial implantation or at pulse generator and lead replacement during a period of 55 months. A total of 150 nonprogrammable pacemakers were implanted in 148 patients, while 236 multiprogrammable pacemakers were implanted in 226 patients. The purpose of the analysis was to investigate the occurrence and management of malfunction unrelated to pacemaker/lead failure or lead dislodgement. The nonprogrammable group was followed for 3-53 months (median, 36). Malfunction occurred in 18 patients (12.0%): muscle stimulation in 14; exit block in three; sensing problem in one. Surgical correction was necessary in 14 of 18 cases. The multiprogrammable group was followed for 3-52 months (median, 12). Malfunction occurred in 30 cases (12.7%): muscle stimulation in 22; threshold increase in seven; sensing problem in one. Only seven of these patients required surgical correction as 23 cases were successfully managed by reprogramming alone. Malfunctions occurred during a period of several days to 36 months (median, 2.3 months). The difference in rate of secondary surgical intervention was significant (p less than 0.01). Measurements during reoperation in the nonprogrammable group showed that at least 40% of late malfunctions would have been correctable by reprogramming alone. Thus, multiprogrammability is of significant value for noninvasive correction of malfunctions unrelated to pacemaker and lead failures, predominantly muscle stimulation and threshold elevation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pless et al. (1986) conducted a cohort in Pacing system malfunctions (n=374). Multiprogrammable VVI pacemakers vs. Nonprogrammable VVI pacemakers was evaluated on Secondary surgical intervention (p=<0.01). Multiprogrammable pacemakers significantly reduced the need for secondary surgical intervention for malfunctions compared to nonprogrammable pacemakers (3.1% vs 9.5%; p<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: