PP-149 [AJC » Cardiac pacing for bradyarrhythmias] Epicardial Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Via Coronary Sinus in a Patient With Bioprosthesis Tricuspid Valve

2017 ◽  
Vol 119 (8) ◽  
pp. e90-e91
Author(s):  
Hakan Güneş ◽  
Sami Özgül ◽  
Gülizar Sökmen ◽  
Abdullah Sökmen ◽  
Murat Kerkütlüoğlu ◽  
...  
1998 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyun Suk Choi ◽  
Myung-Yong Lee ◽  
Moo-Yong Lee ◽  
Seong-Choon Choe ◽  
Young-Jin Choi ◽  
...  

1991 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-155
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Lawrence

Advances in pacemaker technology over the last 25 years have made cardiac pacing in infants and children a safe and practical therapy. Some of the technical challenges encountered with the first permanent pacemaker implantation in children during the early 1960s have been solved with miniaturized generators, lithium batteries, noninvasive programmability, and improved placement techniques.1–3 This chapter reports common causes of bradydysrhythmias in children, reviews the indications for permanent pacemaker implantation in children, describes current pacing systems appropriate for children, and identifies nursing implications and potential pacemaker complications unique to children


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 1746
Author(s):  
Nagabhushan Doddaka ◽  
Revanth Vulli ◽  
Sourabh Agstam ◽  
Vikas Kadiyala

Right ventricular endocardial pacing is partially contraindicated in the presence of mechanical tricuspid valve. Occurrences of atrioventricular block are commonly associated in postoperative period in Ebstein anomaly repaired with mechanical tricuspid valve. Coronary sinus (CS) pacing is the preferred site in this scenario. However, the anatomical variations in Ebstein anomaly leads to difficulties in hooking the CS. With the help of real time left coronary injection enabled in understanding the anatomical orientation of CS ostium take off, leading to successful CS lead implantation. 


Open Heart ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. e000878 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamad Alkhouli ◽  
Chalak Berzingi ◽  
Amer Kowatli ◽  
Fahad Alqahtani ◽  
Vinay Badhwar

BackgroundComparative outcome data on tricuspid valve repair (TVr) versus tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) for severe secondary tricuspid regurgitation (TR) are limited.MethodsWe used a national inpatient sample to assess in-hospital morbidity and mortality, length of stay and cost in patients with severe secondary TR undergoing isolated TVr versus TVR.ResultsA total of 1364 patients (national estimate=6757) underwent isolated tricuspid valve surgery during the study period, of whom 569 (41.7%) had TVr and 795 (58.3%) had TVR. There was no difference in the prevalence of major morbidities between the two groups, except for liver disease and hepatic cirrhosis, which were more common in the TVR group. Before propensity matching, in-hospital mortality was similar between patients who underwent isolated TVr and TVR (8.1% vs 10.8%, p=0.093), but the incidence of postoperative morbidities differed: TVR was associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and blood transfusion, while TVr was associated with more acute kidney injury. After rigorous propensity score matching, TVR was associated with significantly higher rates of in-hospital death (12% vs 6.9%, p=0.009) and permanent pacemaker implantation (33.7% vs 11.2%, p<0.001). Postoperative morbidities and length of stay, however, were not different between the two groups. Nonetheless, cost of hospitalisation was 16% higher in the TVr group.ConclusionsIn patients undergoing isolated surgery for secondary TR, TVR is associated with higher in-hospital mortality and need for permanent pacemaker compared with TVr. Further studies are needed to understand the impact of the type of surgery on the short-term and long-term mortality in this complex undertreated population.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document