Risk factors associated with clinically relevant pericardial effusion after primary cardiac implantable electronic device implantation

被引:0
|
作者
Zhou, Yangzhi [1 ]
Haxha, Saranda [1 ,2 ]
Halili, Andrim [1 ,2 ]
Philbert, Berit T. [3 ]
Nielsen, Olav W. [1 ]
Sajadieh, Ahmad [1 ]
Koeber, Lars [3 ]
Gislason, Gunnar H. [4 ]
Torp-Pedersen, Christian
Bang, Casper N. [1 ]
机构
[1] Bispebjerg & Frederiksberg Hosp, Dept Cardiol, Copenhagen, Denmark
[2] North Zealand Hosp, Dept Cardiol, Hillerod, Denmark
[3] Copenhagen Univ Hosp, Rigshosp, Dept Cardiol, Copenhagen, Denmark
[4] Herlev Gentofte Hosp, Dept Cardiol, Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
cardiac implantable electronic device; cardiac tamponade; clinically relevant pericardial effusion; pericardiocentesis; postprocedural complication; ANTIPLATELET THERAPY; PACEMAKER; COMPLICATIONS; PERFORATION; PREDICTORS; ANTICOAGULATION; AMYLOIDOSIS; MANAGEMENT; HEPARIN;
D O I
10.1111/jce.16442
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: Pericardial effusion, a known complication to implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), may cause life-threatening cardiac tamponade. Limited knowledge is available about risk factors for clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion. The aim is to identify the patient- and procedure-related risk factors associated with clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion. Method: A nationwide observational cohort study based on data on 55 121 patients from the Danish Pacemaker Register between 2000 and 2018. We defined a clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion related to the implantation if it occurred within 90 days after the primary CIED-procedure. Prespecified risk factors were analysed by multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the association with pericardial effusion. Results: There were 115 (0.21%) patients diagnosed with clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion, with a median age of 75 years and 38.3% were females. Of these, 80.9% lead to a subsequent pericardiocentesis procedure. In adjusted logistic regression analysis, an increased risk of clinically relevant pericardial effusion was associated with female sex (OR:1.49 [95%CI: 1.03-2.16]), heart failure (OR:1.54 [95%CI: 1.06-2.23]), previous cardiac surgery (OR:1.63 [95%CI: 1.05-2.55]), CRT-device (OR:2.05 [95%CI: 1.23-3.41]), tertiary-centres (OR:1.8 [95%CI: 1.18-2.73]), increased procedural volume per year (>1000) (OR:1.85 [95%CI: 1.03-3.30]), indication of device-implantation (atrioventricular block) (OR:2.37 [95CI: 1.45-3.87]), and increasing number of leads implanted (two leads (OR:2.39 [95%CI: 1.43-4.00]), three leads (OR:4.77 [95%CI: 2.50-9.10])). Conclusion: Clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion is a rare complication after CIED-implantation in Denmark. This study reveals important patient- and procedure-related risk factors associated with clinically relevant procedural pericardial effusion.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] INCIDENCE AND OUTCOMES OF WORSENING TRICUSPID REGURGITATION AFTER TRANSVENOUS CARDIAC IMPLANTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE IMPLANTATION
    Kim, Kitae
    Toyota, Toshiaki
    Okada, Taiji
    Taniguchi, Tomohiko
    Ehara, Natsuhiko
    Kobori, Atsushi
    Kinoshita, Makoto
    Furukawa, Yutaka
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2023, 81 (08) : 2006 - 2006
  • [32] Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection in Patients at Risk
    Tarakji, Khaldoun G.
    Ellis, Christopher R.
    Defaye, Pascal
    Kennergren, Charles
    ARRHYTHMIA & ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY REVIEW, 2016, 5 (01) : 65 - 71
  • [33] Leadless Pacemaker Implantation After Transvenous Lead Removal of Infected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device
    Gwechenberger, M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2024, 212 : 139 - 140
  • [34] Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation Intraoperative, Acute, and Remote Complications
    Harding, Melissa E.
    AACN ADVANCED CRITICAL CARE, 2015, 26 (04) : 312 - 319
  • [35] Variation in regional implantation patterns of cardiac implantable electronic device in Switzerland
    Bolt, Lucy
    Wertli, Maria M.
    Haynes, Alan G.
    Rodondi, Nicolas
    Chiolero, Arnaud
    Panczak, Radoslaw
    Aujesky, Drahomir
    PLOS ONE, 2022, 17 (02):
  • [36] Cardiac implantable electronic device hematomas: Risk factors and effect of prophylactic pressure bandaging
    Koh, Youlin
    Bingham, Nicholas E.
    Law, Natalie
    Le, Dustin
    Mariani, Justin A.
    PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2017, 40 (07): : 857 - 867
  • [37] CARDIAC IMPLANTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE INFECTION: PREVALENCE AND RISK FACTORS (A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE)
    Ghazaryan, N. l.
    Kachatryan, A. H.
    Adamyan, M. Yu.
    Hovakimyan, T. B.
    NEW ARMENIAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2022, 16 (04):
  • [38] Axillary vein spasm during cardiac implantable electronic device implantation
    Steckiewicz, R.
    Gorko, D.
    Swieton, E. B.
    Szparecki, G.
    Stolarz, P.
    FOLIA MORPHOLOGICA, 2016, 75 (04) : 543 - 549
  • [39] Risk of lead explantation after first-time implantation of cardiac implantable electronic device as a function of comorbidity: a nationwide study
    Alhakak, A.
    Philbert, B. T.
    Risum, N.
    Mogensen, U. M.
    Jons, C.
    Jacobsen, P. K.
    Haarbo, J.
    Johansen, J. B.
    Nielsen, J. C.
    Riahi, S.
    Torp-Pedersen, C.
    Fosbol, E. L.
    Kober, L.
    Vinther, M.
    Weeke, P. E.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2022, 43 : 749 - 749
  • [40] Micra™ leadless cardiac pacemaker implantation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic device extraction
    Kiblboeck, D.
    Blessberger, H.
    Ebner, J.
    Boetscher, J.
    Maier, J.
    Savci, M.
    Schwarz, S.
    Reiter, C.
    Buchmayr, G.
    Wichert-Schmitt, B.
    Steinwender, C.
    Saleh, K.
    WIENER KLINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 2021, 133 (SUPPL 3) : S140 - S140