-
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,
Jazyk angličtina Země Německo
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
Grantová podpora
Q38
Univerzita Karlova v Praze
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
- MeSH
- časové faktory MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- kardiostimulátor * MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- následné studie MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- selhání zařízení MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- srdeční arytmie * terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
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