arrow
Return

Pacemaker reprogramming rarely needed after device replacement

delete2017-09-27
delete4
PRE
AI
K
Karol Čurila *
S
Smida, J.
D
Dalibor Heřman
P
Pavel Osmančík
P
Petr Štros
Z
Zdarska, J.
R
Radka Procházková
P
Petr Widimský
DOI:10.1007/s00059-017-4627-5delete
deleteOriginal
deleteShare
deleteSave
Abstract

Abstract

En 中文
BackgroundMost 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.MethodsAretrospective 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.ResultsPacemaker 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).ConclusionThe 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.
Keywords:
Cardiac pacing
Follow-up
Outpatients

Journal

H
Herz
IF:
0.9
Papers:
55
Citations:
1.3K

Organization

C
Charles University Prague
Scholars:
3.0W
Papers: 2.2W
Citations: 2.0W
Cited Papers

Cited Papers

Pacemaker follow-up: are the latest guidelines in line with modern pacemaker practice?
err2012-10-24
err8
errOAAI
errUdo, Erik O.; van Hemel, Norbert M.; Zuithoff, Nicolaas P. A.; Dijk, W. Arnold; Hooijschuur, Carla A. M.; Doevendans, Pieter A.; Moons, Karel G. M.
errShare
errSave
Incidence and predictors of pacemaker reprogramming: potential consequences for remote follow-up
err2013-02-17
err10
errOAAI
errUdo, Erik O.; van Hemel, Norbert M.; Zuithoff, Nicolaas P. A.; Barrett, Mike J.; Ruiter, Jaap H.; Doevendans, Pieter A.; Moons, Karel G. M.
errShare
errSave
Statistics on the use of cardiac electronic devices and electrophysiological procedures in the European Society of Cardiology countries: 2014 report from the European Heart Rhythm Association
err2015-01-23
err160
errOAAI
errRaatikainen, M. J. Pekka; Arnar, David O.; Zeppenfeld, Katja; Luis Merino, Jose; Levya, Francisco; Hindriks, Gerhardt; Kuck, Karl-Heinz
errShare
errSave
Actions elicited during scheduled and unscheduled in-hospital follow-up of cardiac devices: results of the ATHENS multicentre registry
err2011-07-14
err16
PREAI
errMascioli, Giosue; Curnis, Antonio; Landolina, Maurizio; Klersy, Catherine; Gelmini, Gian-Paolo; Ruffa, Franco
errShare
errSave