Comparison of Single- vs. Dual-Lead CIEDs Regarding Perioperative Complications-Analysis of the Quality Assurance Data of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background/Objective: Previous studies have indicated a higher incidence of complications associated with dual-lead devices compared to single-lead devices. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the effect of lead count and other factors on peri/postoperative complications for new pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations in a representative German cohort. Methods: In accordance with quality assurance (QS) requirements, all hospitals in Germany collect patient-specific data on cardiac device implantation. We utilized the QS database from North Rhine-Westphalia to analyze data from 169,547 patients who underwent PM (n = 137,208) or ICD (n = 32,339) implantation between 2010 and 2014. The primary endpoint was the incidence of perioperative complications in the PM and ICD groups, analyzed separately for single- and dual-lead systems. Regression analysis was performed to identify specific risk factors and the effect of lead number on complications. Results: In the PM group, patients with dual-lead devices experienced significantly more complications than those with single-lead devices (3.27% vs. 2.85%, p < 0.001), largely driven by lead dislocations. In the ICD group, no significant difference in complication rates was observed between single-lead and dual-lead devices (1.39% vs. 1.46%, p = 0.635). The risk of complications was over twice as high for PM implantation compared to ICD implantation (3.17% vs. 1.42%). Patients with intrahospital complications faced a significantly higher risk of mortality than those without complications (PM: 4.5% vs. 1.6%; ICD: 3.9% vs. 0.5%). Independent risk factors for complications and mortality were identified in both groups, with a notable increase in the risk of intrahospital mortality associated with complications. Conclusions: Complications of dual-lead PM implantations are higher than single-lead procedures, mostly due to lead dislocations. Such a difference, though, was not observed in ICD implantations. Our findings may help optimize procedural strategies to improve patient safety, especially in PM implantations.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.