Premium
Analysis of the Effectiveness of In‐Office and Transtelephonic Follow‐Up in Terms of Pacemaker System Complications
Author(s) -
SWEESY MARK W.,
ERICKSON STEVEN L.,
CRAGO JUDY A.,
CASTOR KAREN N.,
BATEY ROBERT L.,
FORNEY RICHARD C.
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1994.tb03788.x
Subject(s) - medicine , single chamber , complication , tachycardia , surgery , anesthesia , cardiology
A study was undertaken to determine the most effective method of pacemaker follow‐up in terms of the total number of complications detected and yield per follow‐up in single and dual chamber pacing systems. The analysis involved 9,786 patient records from 635 patients. The records were reviewed with respect to method of follow‐up, number of chambers paced, and complications detected. Complications included: oversensing, undersensing, noncapture, pocket and diaphragmatic stimulation, pacemaker mediated tachycardia, crosstalk, pulse generator malfunction, lead malfunction, infection/erosion, premature end of service, exit block, and other miscellaneous problems. Eight thousand two hundred eighty‐eight of the 9,786 follow‐ups were performed in the office while 1,498 were transtelephonic. Single chamber pacing systems were implanted in 329 patients and 306 were dual chamber systems. A total of 599 complications were detected. Analysis yielded a per patient complication rate of 5.1 % (single chamber) and 8.4% (dual chamber) for in‐office follow‐up. This compared to a transtelephonic follow‐up per patient complication rate of only 0.3% (single chamber) and 1.0% (dual chamber). In‐office pacemaker follow‐up is significantly more effective (P < 0.001) than transtelephonic follow‐up in detecting both single and dual chamber pacemaker system complications.