医学
四分位间距
危险系数
心动过缓
心力衰竭
内科学
心房颤动
心脏病学
置信区间
窦性心动过缓
病态窦房结综合征
永久起搏器
心脏传导阻滞
心率
心电图
血压
作者
Tomonori Katsuki,Michio Nagashima,Hiroyuki Kono,Yohei Sadohara,Jun Hirokami,Rei Kuji,Kengo Korai,Masato Fukunaga,Kenichi Hiroshima,Kenji Andò
摘要
Abstract Introduction The long‐term performance of leadless pacemaker (LPM) has not been well evaluated. Methods Between September 2017 and January 2021, 929 consecutive patients who underwent pacemaker implantation were grouped according to the types of pacemakers: LPM (LPM group, n = 368) and conventional pacemaker (PM group, n = 561). Results The median follow‐up duration was 1.7 years (interquartile range 0.8–2.6 years). Hospitalization rate for heart failure in the LPM group was 9.3%, 15.6%, and 21.6% at 1, 2, 3 years, respectively. The LPM group had a significantly higher adjusted heart failure hospitalization risk than the PM group [hazard ratio (HR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–2.64, p = .01]. More patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by sinus node dysfunction (SND) in the LPM group ( n = 150) were admitted to the hospital for heart failure compared to those in the PM group ( n = 219) (HR 2.02, 95%CI 1.04–3.90, p = .03), whereas no significant difference was observed between the two groups in the patients with bradycardia caused by atrial fibrillation (LPM group, n = 71; PM group, n = 18) or atrioventricular block (LPM group, n = 147; PM group, n = 324). Conclusions Patients who received LPM implantation had greater hospitalization risk for heart failure, compared to those who received conventional pacemaker implantation. The increased risk was mainly attributed to patients with SND.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI