March 1, 2000Current Opinion in Cardiology
Cardiac pacemakers in the transplanted heart: short term with the biatrial anastomosis and unnecessary with the bicaval anastomosis
Key result
The bicaval technique for donor heart implantation appears to decrease or eliminate the need for early permanent pacing compared to the standard biatrial technique, which historically required pacing in >10% of patients.
Why the study?
Does the bicaval anastomosis technique reduce the need for permanent pacing in orthotopic heart transplant recipients compared to the standard biatrial technique?
Population
Patients after orthotopic heart transplantation
Comparison
Bicaval anastomosis technique for donor heart… vs Standard biatrial technique (Lower and Shumway)
Design
Review
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
May reduce early pacing needs with bicaval anastomosis; leaves open practice change pending randomized confirmation.
Structured PICO
Does the bicaval anastomosis technique reduce the need for permanent pacing in orthotopic heart transplant recipients compared to the standard biatrial technique?
P
Population
Patients after orthotopic heart transplantation
I
Intervention
Bicaval anastomosis technique for donor heart implantation
C
Comparator
Standard biatrial technique (Lower and Shumway)
O
Outcome
Need for permanent pacing
The bicaval anastomosis technique in heart transplantation significantly reduces or eliminates the need for early permanent pacing compared to the traditional biatrial technique.
Cite This Study
Herre et al. (2000) conducted a review in Sinus node dysfunction after orthotopic heart transplantation. Bicaval technique for implantation of the donor heart vs. Standard biatrial technique was evaluated. The bicaval technique for donor heart implantation appears to decrease or eliminate the need for early permanent pacing compared to the standard biatrial technique, which historically required pacing in >10% of patients.