Cargando…

Permanent pacemaker post-valve surgery: Do valve type and position matter? A propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This study evaluates whether aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) with biological versus mechanical prostheses is independent risk factors for permanent pacemaker (PPM) post-cardiac surgery, alongside traditionally accepted determinants. METHODS: This...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gatta, Francesca, Haqzad, Yama, Loubani, Mahmoud
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Whioce Publishing Pte. Ltd. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8710354/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34988330
_version_ 1784623133684137984
author Gatta, Francesca
Haqzad, Yama
Loubani, Mahmoud
author_facet Gatta, Francesca
Haqzad, Yama
Loubani, Mahmoud
author_sort Gatta, Francesca
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIM: This study evaluates whether aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) with biological versus mechanical prostheses is independent risk factors for permanent pacemaker (PPM) post-cardiac surgery, alongside traditionally accepted determinants. METHODS: This study focused on single-centre retrospective analysis of 10 years of activity. Case–control 1-to-9 matching was performed for 7 pre-operative and 2 intraoperative confounding factors. RESULTS: After matching, 617 patients were included for analysis: AVR (79.4% n=490) and MVR (20.6% n=127). PPM was implanted in 3.7% (n=18) and 3.1% (n=4), P=0.8, respectively. A further analysis for PPM rate in biological versus mechanical prostheses did not provide any significant result (P=0.6 AVR and P=0.8 MVR). Post-operative complications in AVR and MVR groups were as follows: Reopening (4.5% vs. 6.3%, P=0.4), myocardial infarction (0.8% vs. 3.2%, P=0.04), pulmonary (32.9% vs. 38.6%, P=0.3), neurological (9.2% vs. 11.8%, P=0.4), renal (9.8% vs. 7.9%, P=0.5), wound (1.4% vs. 2.4%, P=0.5), infective (5.5% vs. 8.7%, P=0.2), and multiple organ failure (4.9% vs. 5.5%, P=0.6). The length of intensive care unit (hours) and hospital stay (days) was 71±163.8 versus 106.5±243.7 (P=0.5) and 14.7±14.7 versus 18.9±20.8 (P=0.01). In-hospital mortality resulted in 4.1% for AVR and 3.9% for MVR, P=0.9. CONCLUSION: Valve position and valve type do not affect the likelihood of requiring permanent pacing in patients undergoing isolated aortic and MVR. RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS: A significant proportion of patients undergoing cardiac surgery develop arrhythmias and conduction disturbances postoperatively, often requiring the implantation of a PPM. Determining factors associated with an increase likelihood of permanent pacing would allow the optimization of per- and intra-operative care, with the aim of reducing the incidence of patients requiring post-operative PPM insertion.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8710354
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Whioce Publishing Pte. Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87103542022-01-04 Permanent pacemaker post-valve surgery: Do valve type and position matter? A propensity score matching study Gatta, Francesca Haqzad, Yama Loubani, Mahmoud J Clin Transl Res Original Article BACKGROUND AND AIM: This study evaluates whether aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) with biological versus mechanical prostheses is independent risk factors for permanent pacemaker (PPM) post-cardiac surgery, alongside traditionally accepted determinants. METHODS: This study focused on single-centre retrospective analysis of 10 years of activity. Case–control 1-to-9 matching was performed for 7 pre-operative and 2 intraoperative confounding factors. RESULTS: After matching, 617 patients were included for analysis: AVR (79.4% n=490) and MVR (20.6% n=127). PPM was implanted in 3.7% (n=18) and 3.1% (n=4), P=0.8, respectively. A further analysis for PPM rate in biological versus mechanical prostheses did not provide any significant result (P=0.6 AVR and P=0.8 MVR). Post-operative complications in AVR and MVR groups were as follows: Reopening (4.5% vs. 6.3%, P=0.4), myocardial infarction (0.8% vs. 3.2%, P=0.04), pulmonary (32.9% vs. 38.6%, P=0.3), neurological (9.2% vs. 11.8%, P=0.4), renal (9.8% vs. 7.9%, P=0.5), wound (1.4% vs. 2.4%, P=0.5), infective (5.5% vs. 8.7%, P=0.2), and multiple organ failure (4.9% vs. 5.5%, P=0.6). The length of intensive care unit (hours) and hospital stay (days) was 71±163.8 versus 106.5±243.7 (P=0.5) and 14.7±14.7 versus 18.9±20.8 (P=0.01). In-hospital mortality resulted in 4.1% for AVR and 3.9% for MVR, P=0.9. CONCLUSION: Valve position and valve type do not affect the likelihood of requiring permanent pacing in patients undergoing isolated aortic and MVR. RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS: A significant proportion of patients undergoing cardiac surgery develop arrhythmias and conduction disturbances postoperatively, often requiring the implantation of a PPM. Determining factors associated with an increase likelihood of permanent pacing would allow the optimization of per- and intra-operative care, with the aim of reducing the incidence of patients requiring post-operative PPM insertion. Whioce Publishing Pte. Ltd. 2021-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8710354/ /pubmed/34988330 Text en Copyright: © Whioce Publishing Pte. Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Gatta, Francesca
Haqzad, Yama
Loubani, Mahmoud
Permanent pacemaker post-valve surgery: Do valve type and position matter? A propensity score matching study
title Permanent pacemaker post-valve surgery: Do valve type and position matter? A propensity score matching study
title_full Permanent pacemaker post-valve surgery: Do valve type and position matter? A propensity score matching study
title_fullStr Permanent pacemaker post-valve surgery: Do valve type and position matter? A propensity score matching study
title_full_unstemmed Permanent pacemaker post-valve surgery: Do valve type and position matter? A propensity score matching study
title_short Permanent pacemaker post-valve surgery: Do valve type and position matter? A propensity score matching study
title_sort permanent pacemaker post-valve surgery: do valve type and position matter? a propensity score matching study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8710354/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34988330
work_keys_str_mv AT gattafrancesca permanentpacemakerpostvalvesurgerydovalvetypeandpositionmatterapropensityscorematchingstudy
AT haqzadyama permanentpacemakerpostvalvesurgerydovalvetypeandpositionmatterapropensityscorematchingstudy
AT loubanimahmoud permanentpacemakerpostvalvesurgerydovalvetypeandpositionmatterapropensityscorematchingstudy