首页> 外文期刊>BMC Nephrology >Impact of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices in chronic hemodialysis patients: a single-center, observational comparative study
【24h】

Impact of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices in chronic hemodialysis patients: a single-center, observational comparative study

机译:静脉心脏植入式电子设备对慢性血液透析患者的影响:单中心,观察性比较研究

获取原文
       

摘要

We investigated the impact of a transvenous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement on outcomes and arteriovenous vascular access (VA) patency among chronic hemodialysis patients. This is a single-center, observational comparative study between chronic hemodialysis patients with ipsilateral and contralateral CIED and VA. Forty-two consecutive patients who underwent both CIED placement and upper-extremity VA for hemodialysis, regardless of the sequence and time interval between these 2 procedures, were identified between January 2001 and December 2017. Patients with ipsilateral (n?=?22, 52%, the ipsilateral group) and contralateral (n?=?20, 48%, the contralateral group) CIED and VA were compared retrospectively; the primary outcome was any-cause mortality and cardiac mortality or the composite of any systemic complications, defined as central venous stenosis or occlusion, any device infections or tricuspid regurgitation; the secondary outcome was CIED or VA malfunction. During the median follow-up period of 101?months, primary outcome incidence was significantly higher in the ipsilateral group than the contralateral group (73% vs 40%, P?=?0.03), although the incidences of any-cause mortality (P?=?0.28) and cardiac mortality (P??0.99) were similar between the groups. Secondary outcome incidence did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (55% vs 30%, P?=?0.36). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed similar primary and secondary VA patency rates in both groups. On subgroup analysis, patients with upper arm VA had similar primary and secondary patency to those with forearm VA. Despite some notable limitations of the study, the retrospective study design and small sample size, we found that the any-cause mortality incidence and VA patency did not differ between the 2 groups, but primary outcome incidence was significantly higher among patients with ipsilateral CIED and VA.
机译:我们调查了慢性血液透析患者中​​经心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)放置对结局和动静脉血管通畅(VA)通畅的影响。这是单侧和对侧CIED和VA的慢性血液透析患者之间的单中心,观察性比较研究。在2001年1月至2017年12月之间,确定了连续接受CIED放置和上肢VA透析的42例患者,而不论这两个过程之间的顺序和时间间隔如何。同侧患者(n?=?22,52分别比较%,同侧组和对侧(n≥20,48%,对侧组)CIED和VA。主要结果是任何原因的死亡率和心脏死亡率,或任何全身性并发症的综合,定义为中央静脉狭窄或闭塞,任何器械感染或三尖瓣关闭不全;次要结果是CIED或VA故障。在中位随访期101个月中,同病组的主要结局发生率显着高于对侧组(73%vs 40%,P≥0.03),尽管有任何原因的死亡率(P两组之间的相似性(α= 0.28)和心脏死亡率(P> 0.99)。两组的次要结局发生率无显着差异(55%vs 30%,P = 0.36)。 Kaplan-Meier生存分析显示两组的初次和二次VA通畅率相似。在亚组分析中,上臂VA患者的通畅程度与前臂VA患者相似。尽管该研究存在某些明显的局限性,回顾性研究设计和较小的样本量,但我们发现两组的任何原因的死亡率和VA通畅性均无差异,但同侧CIED和VA。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号