| 1. |
- Aktaa, Suleman, et al.
(author)
-
European Society of Cardiology Quality Indicators for the care and outcomes of cardiac pacing : developed by the Working Group for Cardiac Pacing Quality Indicators in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology
- 2022
-
In: Europace. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1099-5129 .- 1532-2092. ; 24:1, s. 165-172
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- AIMS: To develop a suite of quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the care and outcomes for adults undergoing cardiac pacing.METHODS AND RESULTS: Under the auspice of the Clinical Practice Guideline Quality Indicator Committee of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the Working Group for cardiac pacing QIs was formed. The Group comprised Task Force members of the 2021 ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines on Cardiac Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy, members of the European Heart Rhythm Association, international cardiac device experts, and patient representatives. We followed the ESC methodology for QI development, which involved (i) the identification of the key domains of care by constructing a conceptual framework of the management of patients receiving cardiac pacing, (ii) the development of candidate QIs by conducting a systematic review of the literature, (iii) the selection of the final set of QIs using a modified-Delphi method, and (iv) the evaluation of the feasibility of the developed QIs. Four domains of care were identified: (i) structural framework, (ii) patient assessment, (iii) pacing strategy, and (iv) clinical outcomes. In total, seven main and four secondary QIs were selected across these domains and were embedded within the 2021 ESC Guidelines on Cardiac Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronization therapy.CONCLUSION: By way of a standardized process, 11 QIs for cardiac pacing were developed. These indicators may be used to quantify adherence to guideline-recommended clinical practice and have the potential to improve the care and outcomes of patients receiving cardiac pacemakers.
|
|
| 2. |
- Levi, Nir, et al.
(author)
-
Lead fixation mechanism impacts outcome of transvenous lead extraction : Data from the European Lead Extraction ConTRolled Registry
- 2022
-
In: Europace. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1099-5129 .- 1532-2092. ; 24:5, s. 817-827
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- AIMS: The aims of this study is to characterize the transvenous lead extraction (TLE) population with active (A) compared with passive fixation (PFix) leads and to compare the safety, efficacy, and ease of extracting active fixation (AFix) compared with PFix right atrial (RA) and right ventricular (RV) leads.METHODS AND RESULTS: The European Lead Extraction ConTRolled Registry (ELECTRa) was analysed. Patients were divided into three groups; those with only AFix, only PFix, and combined Fix leads. Three outcomes were defined. Difficult extraction, complete radiological, and clinical success. Multivariate model was used to analyse the independent effect of Fix mechanism on these outcomes. The study included 2815 patients, 1456 (51.7%) with only AFix leads, 982 (34.9%) with only PFix leads, and 377 (13.4%) with combined Fix leads. Patients with AFix leads were younger with shorter lead dwelling time. Infection was the leading cause for TLE among the combined Fix group with lowest rates among AFix group. No difference in complications rates was noted between patients with only AFix vs. PFix leads. Overall, there were 1689 RA (1046 AFix and 643 PFix) and 2617 RV leads (1441 AFix and 1176 PFix). Multivariate model demonstrated that PFix is independently associated with more difficult extraction for both RA and RV leads, lower radiological success in the RA but has no effect on clinical success.CONCLUSION: Mechanism of Fix impact the ease of TLE of RA and RV leads and rates of complete radiological success in the RA but not clinical success. These findings should be considered during implantation and TLE procedures.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Nof, Eyal, et al.
(author)
-
Comparison of outcomes in infected cardiovascular implantable electronic devices between complete, partial, and failed lead removal : an ESC-EHRA-EORP ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTrolled) registry
- 2019
-
In: Europace. - : Oxford University Press. - 1099-5129 .- 1532-2092. ; 21:12, s. 1876-1889
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- AIMS: The present study sought to determine predictors for success and outcomes of patients who underwent cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) extraction indicated for systemic or local CIED related infection in particular where complete lead removal could not be achieved.METHODS AND RESULTS: ESC-EORP ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTRolled Registry) is a European prospective lead extraction registry. Out of the total cohort, 1865/3510 (52.5%) patients underwent removal due to CIED related infection. Predictors and outcomes of failure were analysed. Complete removal was achieved in 1743 (93.5%) patients, partial (<4 cm of lead left) in 88 (4.7%), and failed (>4 cm of lead left) in 32 (1.8%) patients. Removal success was unrelated to type of CIED infection (pocket or systemic). Predictors for failure were older leads and older patients [odds ratio (OR) 1.14 (1.08-1.19), P < 0.0001 and OR 2.68 (1.22-5.91), P = 0.0146, respectively]. In analysis by lead, predictors for failure were: pacemaker vs. defibrillator removal and failure to engage the locking stylet all the way to the tip [OR 0.20 (0.04-0.95), P = 0.03 and OR 0.32 (0.13-0.74), P = 0.008, respectively]. Significantly higher complication rates were noted in the failure group (40.6% vs. 15.9 for partial and 8.7% for success groups, P < 0.0001). Failure to remove a lead was a strong predictor for in hospital mortality [hazard ratio of 2.05 (1.01-4.16), P = 0.046].CONCLUSION: A total of 6.5% of infected CIED patients failed attempted extraction. Only were >4 cm of lead remained resulted in higher procedural complications and mortality rates.
|
|
