English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

1.Centro Avançado de Ritmologia e Eletrofi siologia – São Paulo/SP – Brazil. 2.Hospital Benefi cência Portuguesa de São Paulo – São Paulo/SP – Brazil. *Correspondence author: raoni.castrogalvao@yahoo.com.br Received: 04 Mar 2019 | Accepted: 07 Mar 2019 Section Editor: J Tarciso Medeiros de Vasconcelos ABSTRACT Introduction: the necessity for temporary pacemaker (TP) goes through several scenarios. Some patients require the device to complete an infection treatment, regain the pace after myocardial infarction, or while awaiting the release of the defi nitive device by the health care provider. Regardless of the TP passage technique, good electrode fi xation is essential, avoiding dislocation and the necessity for repositioning, among other complications. Objective: to compare two forms of TP fi xation, one under direct fi xation to the skin and the other keeping the venous introducer connected to the plastic protection through the pacemaker electrode lead. Methods: Forty patients were randomized, 20 in each group. Data regarding the procedure time, electrode lead position, command thresholds, sensitivity, and complications were recorded. The primary outcome considered was the necessity for repositioning or exchange of transvenous TP and secondary any complication without the necessity to reposition it. Results: There were no signifi cant diff erences in the total duration of the procedure between the groups in the initial position of the electrode and the access route used. The group with plastic protection had a higher primary outcome (60%) than the direct fi xation group (20%; p = 0.0098). There were no diff erences regarding the secondary outcome (p = 1.0). The group with plastic protection also had more total complications compared to the other group (p = 0.0262). Conclusion: Direct fi xation of the pacemaker electrode lead was safer concerning the fi xation with plastic protection, reducing complications such as electrode dislocation requiring repositioning or replacement without increasing the procedure time.

Comparison of Two Transvenous Temporary Pacemaker Fixation Methods: FIX-IT Trial