A Review of Temporary Permanent Pacemakers and a Comparison with Conventional Temporary Pacemakers

Temporary cardiac pacing is commonly used in patients with life-threatening bradycardia and serves as a bridge to implantation of a permanent pacemaker (PPM). For years, passive fixation leads have been used for this purpose, offering the advantage of that they can be placed at bedside. The downside, however, is that patients must remain on telemetry and bed rest until lead removal due to the risk of displacement and failure to capture. Even then, the latter cannot always be prevented. Temporary cardiac pacing with passive fixation leads has also been related to a higher incidence of infection and venous thrombosis, delayed recovery, and increased length of stay. Thus, over the last couple of decades, pacemaker leads with an active fixation mechanism have become increasingly used. This is known as a temporary PPM (TPPM) approach, which carries a very low risk of lead dislodgement and allows patients to ambulate, among other advantages. Here, we performed a review of the literature on the use of TPPMs and their advantages over temporary pacemakers with passive fixation leads and in order to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of active and passive fixation leads in temporary cardiac pacing. Most articles found were case reports and case series, with few prospective studies. We excluded documents such as editorials and image case reports that provided little to no useful information for the final analysis. The literature search was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, and other databases and articles written in English and Spanish were considered. Articles were screened up to January 2017. The search keywords used were “temporary permanent pacemaker,” “external permanent pacemaker,” “active fixation lead,” “explantable pacemaker,” “hybrid pacing,” “temporary permanent generator,” “prolonged temporary transvenous pacing,” and “semipermanent pacemaker.” A total of 24 studies with 770 patients were ultimately included in our review. The age group was primarily above the sixth decade of life, with the exception of one that included pediatric patients. Indications for pacing included device infection, sick sinus syndrome, atrioventricular block, ventricular tachycardia, and bradyarrhythmias associated with systemic illness. The duration of TPPM usage varied from a few days up to 336 days. A total of 18 (2.3%) TPPM-related infections were reported, in which the duration of TPPM use was less than 30 days in at least 15 patients. Loss of capture was documented in only eight patients (1.0%). Complication rates varied from 0% to 30%, with the highest event rates being present in studies that used femoral venous access. In conclusion, although no high-quality studies were identified in our literature search, we found the data retrieved suggest the association of overall favorable outcomes with the use of TPPMs. Device placement and removal typically involve a simple procedure, although fluoroscopy, usually applied in the cardiac catheterization laboratory, is necessary for implantation, which could represent an additional risk in a patient who is already hemodynamically unstable. When possible, a screw-in-lead pacemaker should be used for temporary pacing.