Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Schrittmacherumprogrammierung nach Geräteaustausch nur selten erforderlich [Pacemaker reprogramming rarely needed after device replacement]

K. Curila, J. Smida, D. Herman, P. Osmancik, P. Stros, J. Zdarska, R. Prochazkova, P. Widimsky,

. 2019 ; 44 (1) : 56-59. [pub] 20170927

Jazyk angličtina Země Německo

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc19045598

Grantová podpora
Q38 Univerzita Karlova v Praze

E-zdroje Online Plný text

NLK ProQuest Central od 1997-02-01 do Před 1 rokem
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) od 2005-02-01 do Před 1 rokem
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) od 1997-02-01 do Před 1 rokem

BACKGROUND: Most outpatient follow-ups after pacemaker implantation do not involve changes in the device settings. Moreover, the need for pacemaker reprogramming declines with time after implantation. Currently, data on the need for changes in pacemaker set-up after replacement owing to battery depletion are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the rates of pacemaker reprogramming in this patient group. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using the files of 217 patients who had undergone pacemaker replacement between 2002 and 2005. The data of 1,407 outpatient follow-up visits between 2002 and 2015 were analyzed. Scheduled and unscheduled visits were marked as visits with "action" or visits "without action", depending on whether pacemaker programming was or was not performed, respectively. RESULTS: Pacemaker programming was performed in only 53 (4%) of the 1,234 scheduled visits and in 44 (25%) of 173 unscheduled visits. Thus, only 97 (7%) of 1,407 visits involved changes in device settings. Of these visits, 446 occurred in the first year after device replacement. The rate of unscheduled visits in the first year was higher (17%) than during the overall period (12%), but the rate of visits involving action was the same: 6% (26 of 446, first year) compared with 7% (97 of 1,407). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of outpatient visits after pacemaker replacement do not involve subsequent device reprogramming during follow-up. This suggests the potential benefit of remote follow-up for these patients.

Pacemaker reprogramming rarely needed after device replacement

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc19045598
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20200114085344.0
007      
ta
008      
200109s2019 gw f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s00059-017-4627-5 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)28956076
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a gw
100    1_
$a Curila, K $u Cardiocenter, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 50, 100 34, Prague, Czech Republic. karol.curila@fnkv.cz.
245    10
$a Schrittmacherumprogrammierung nach Geräteaustausch nur selten erforderlich / $c K. Curila, J. Smida, D. Herman, P. Osmancik, P. Stros, J. Zdarska, R. Prochazkova, P. Widimsky,
246    31
$a Pacemaker reprogramming rarely needed after device replacement.
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Most outpatient follow-ups after pacemaker implantation do not involve changes in the device settings. Moreover, the need for pacemaker reprogramming declines with time after implantation. Currently, data on the need for changes in pacemaker set-up after replacement owing to battery depletion are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the rates of pacemaker reprogramming in this patient group. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using the files of 217 patients who had undergone pacemaker replacement between 2002 and 2005. The data of 1,407 outpatient follow-up visits between 2002 and 2015 were analyzed. Scheduled and unscheduled visits were marked as visits with "action" or visits "without action", depending on whether pacemaker programming was or was not performed, respectively. RESULTS: Pacemaker programming was performed in only 53 (4%) of the 1,234 scheduled visits and in 44 (25%) of 173 unscheduled visits. Thus, only 97 (7%) of 1,407 visits involved changes in device settings. Of these visits, 446 occurred in the first year after device replacement. The rate of unscheduled visits in the first year was higher (17%) than during the overall period (12%), but the rate of visits involving action was the same: 6% (26 of 446, first year) compared with 7% (97 of 1,407). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of outpatient visits after pacemaker replacement do not involve subsequent device reprogramming during follow-up. This suggests the potential benefit of remote follow-up for these patients.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
650    12
$a srdeční arytmie $x terapie $7 D001145
650    _2
$a selhání zařízení $7 D004868
650    _2
$a následné studie $7 D005500
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    12
$a kardiostimulátor $7 D010138
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    _2
$a časové faktory $7 D013997
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Smida, J $u Cardiocenter, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 50, 100 34, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Herman, D $u Cardiocenter, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 50, 100 34, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Osmancik, P $u Cardiocenter, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 50, 100 34, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Stros, P $u Cardiocenter, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 50, 100 34, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Zdarska, J $u Cardiocenter, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 50, 100 34, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Prochazkova, R $u Cardiocenter, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 50, 100 34, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Widimsky, P $u Cardiocenter, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Srobarova 50, 100 34, Prague, Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00002031 $t Herz $x 1615-6692 $g Roč. 44, č. 1 (2019), s. 56-59
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28956076 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20200109 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20200114085717 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1483866 $s 1084271
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2019 $b 44 $c 1 $d 56-59 $e 20170927 $i 1615-6692 $m Herz $n Herz $x MED00002031
GRA    __
$a Q38 $p Univerzita Karlova v Praze
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20200109

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...