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
  • [41] Lead dislodgement after a very long-term period of cardiac implantable electronic device implantation
    Iwakawa, Hidehiro
    Terata, Ken
    Yamanaka, Takayuki
    Tashiro, Haruwo
    Watanabe, Hiroyuki
    JOURNAL OF ARRHYTHMIA, 2021, 37 (06) : 1570 - 1571
  • [42] A prospective study of a novel pocket compression device to reduce pocket hematoma after cardiac implantable electronic device implantation in a high bleeding risk population
    Tijskens, M.
    De Schouwer, K.
    Thoen, H.
    Strazdas, A.
    Wolf, M.
    De Greef, Y.
    Schwagten, B.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2024, 45
  • [43] Trends and predictors of cardiac implantable electronic device implantation after cardiac surgery - results from the largest inpatient sample
    Agnihotri, K.
    Charilaou, P.
    Patel, P.
    Baser, K.
    Baser, H. D.
    Patel, N.
    Paydak, H.
    Mehta, J. L.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2018, 39 : 1431 - 1431
  • [44] Study identifies risk factors associated with infection after device implantation
    Nature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine, 2008, 5 (1): : 6 - 6
  • [45] Atypical pathogens associated with cardiac implantable electronic device infections
    Kohli, Utkarsh
    Hazra, Aniruddha
    Shahab, Ahmed
    Beaser, Andrew D.
    Aziz, Zaid A.
    Upadhyay, Gaurav A.
    Ozcan, Cevher
    Tung, Roderick
    Nayak, Hemal M.
    PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2021, 44 (09): : 1549 - 1561
  • [46] Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: Who is at greatest risk?
    Joy, Parijat Saurav
    Kumar, Gagan
    Poole, Jeanne E.
    London, Barry
    Olshansky, Brian
    HEART RHYTHM, 2017, 14 (06) : 839 - 845
  • [47] Infective endocarditis after cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: incidence and associated mortality 'The real path to enlightenment starts with recognition'. Buddha
    Mulpuru, Siva K.
    Friedman, Paul A.
    EUROPACE, 2017, 19 (06): : 885 - 886
  • [48] Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: Incidence, risk factors, and the effect of the AigisRx antibacterial envelope
    Mittal, Suneet
    Shaw, Richard E.
    Michel, Kimberly
    Palekar, Rachel
    Arshad, Aysha
    Musat, Dan
    Preminger, Mark
    Sichrovsky, Tina
    Steinberg, Jonathan S.
    HEART RHYTHM, 2014, 11 (04) : 595 - 601
  • [49] Risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic device infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Polyzos, Konstantinos A.
    Konstantelias, Athanasios A.
    Falagas, Matthew E.
    EUROPACE, 2015, 17 (05): : 767 - 777
  • [50] Efficacy of Shoulder Rehabilitation Post-Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation
    Choi, Sang-Suk
    Son, Yoon-Jin
    Kim, Sung-Jung
    Yoo, Myungjae
    Roh, Sumin
    Yoon, Mi-Jeong
    Hwang, Youmi
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2024, 13 (23)