It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The impact of age (≥ 85 vs < 85 years) on clinical outcomes and pacemaker performance of conduction system pacing (CSP) compared to right ventricular pacing (RVP) were examined. Consecutive patients from a prospective, observational, multicenter study with pacemakers implanted for bradycardia were studied. The primary endpoint was a composite of heart failure (HF)-hospitalizations, pacing-induced cardiomyopathy requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy or all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were acutely successful CSP, absence of pacing-complications, optimal pacemaker performance defined as pacing thresholds < 2.5 V, R-wave amplitude ≥ 5 V and absence of complications, threshold stability (no increases of > 1 V) and persistence of His-Purkinje capture on follow-up. Among 984 patients (age 74.1 ± 11.2 years, 41% CSP, 16% ≥ 85 years), CSP was independently associated with reduced hazard of the primary endpoint compared to RVP, regardless of age-group (< 85 years: adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40–0.98; ≥ 85 years: AHR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17–0.94). Among patients with CSP, age did not significantly impact the secondary endpoints of acute CSP success (86% vs 88%), pacing complications (19% vs 11%), optimal pacemaker performance (64% vs 69%), threshold stability (96% vs 96%) and persistent His-Purkinje capture (86% vs 91%) on follow-up (all p > 0.05). CSP improves clinical outcomes in all age-groups, without compromising procedural safety or pacemaker performance in the very elderly.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 National University Heart Centre, Department of Cardiology, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.488497.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1799 3088); National University Singapore, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.4280.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 6431)
2 National University Heart Centre, Department of Cardiology, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.488497.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1799 3088)
3 Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Department of Cardiology, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.459815.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0493 0168)
4 National University Singapore, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.4280.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 6431)
5 Changi General Hospital, Department of Cardiology, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.413815.a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0469 9373)
6 National University Heart Centre, Department of Cardiology, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.488497.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1799 3088); National University Singapore, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.4280.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 6431); Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Department of Cardiology, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.459815.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0493 0168)