Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Heart Journal logoLink to British Heart Journal
. 1995 Jun;73(6):571–575. doi: 10.1136/hrt.73.6.571

Early complications of permanent pacemaker implantation: no difference between dual and single chamber systems.

R K Aggarwal 1, D T Connelly 1, S G Ray 1, J Ball 1, R G Charles 1
PMCID: PMC483922  PMID: 7626359

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--To evaluate the incidence of intraoperative and early postoperative complications (up to two months after implant) of endocardial permanent pacemaker insertion in all patients under-going a first implant at a referral centre. METHODS--Prospective evaluation of all endocardial pacemaker implantation procedures performed from April 1992 to January 1994 carried out by completion of standard audit form at implant. Patients' demographic data, medical history, details of pacemaker hardware used, and any complications were noted. Follow up information was also collected prospectively onto standard forms at pacemaker outpatient clinic. SETTING--United Kingdom tertiary referral cardiothoracic centre. PATIENTS--1088 consecutive patients underwent implantation of their first endocardial permanent pacemaker from April 1992 to January 1994. Implant and follow up data were available for 1059 (97.3%) patients at analysis. The median (range) age was 77 years (16-99); 51.2 % were male. RESULTS--Dual chamber units were implanted in 54.1% of patients, single chamber atrial in 5.2%, and ventricular in 40.7%. A temporary pacing lead was present at implant in 22.9% of patients. Most (93.6%) implants were performed via the subclavian vein. Immediate complications were rare: eight (0.8%) patients developed pneumothorax requiring medical treatment and 11 (1.0%) an insignificant pneumothorax. There was no significant difference in the pneumothorax rate for dual chamber (DDD) compared with single chamber systems. Arterial puncture without sequelae was documented in 2.7% of attempts at subclavian vein cannulation. A total of 35 patients (3.3%) required reoperation; the reoperation rate for dual chamber (3.5%) was similar to that for single chamber (3.1%) systems. Electrode displacement (n = 15, 1.4%) was the most common reason for reoperation. Atrial lead displacement (n = 10, 1.6% of atrial leads) was significantly more common than ventricular lead displacement (n = 5, 0.5% of ventricular leads, P = 0.047). There was no difference in electrode displacement rates for dual (1.6%) compared with single (1.2%) chamber systems. Pacemaker pocket infection led to reoperation in 10 patients (six dual, four single chamber, P = not significant) and was significantly more common in patients who had a temporary pacing lead in place at implant (2.9%) than in those who did not (0.4%, P = 0.0014). Five patients (0.5%) required reoperation for generator erosion (two dual, three single chamber, P = not significant). and a further five for drainage of haematoma or a serous fluid collection (three dual, two single chamber, P = not significant). Complications that did not require reoperation were also rare. Undersensing occurred in 10 patients (0.9%). Atrial undersensing (n = 8) was significantly more common than ventricular undersensing (n = 2, P = 0.017). All patients were successfully treated by reprogramming of sensitivity. Superficial wound infection was treated successfully with antibiotics in nine patients (six dual, three single chamber, P = not significant). Three patients with DDD generators developed sustained atrial fibrillation: two required reprogramming to VVI mode and one required cardioversion. CONCLUSIONS--Permanent pacing in a large tertiary referral centre with experienced operators carries a low risk. Infection rates are low, < 1% overall but significantly higher in patients who undergo temporary pacing before implantation. Lead displacement and undersensing are more likely to occur with atrial than ventricular leads. The overall complication rate for dual chamber pacing, however, is no higher than for single chamber pacing.

Full text

PDF
571

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bernstein A. D., Parsonnet V. Survey of cardiac pacing in the United States in 1989. Am J Cardiol. 1992 Feb 1;69(4):331–338. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(92)90229-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bluhm G., Nordlander R., Ransjö U. Antibiotic prophylaxis in pacemaker surgery: a prospective double blind trial with systemic administration of antibiotic versus placebo at implantation of cardiac pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1986 Sep;9(5):720–726. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1986.tb05421.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Channon K. M., Cripps T. R., Ormerod O. Recommendations for pacing. BMJ. 1992 Dec 5;305(6866):1431–1432. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6866.1431-a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chauhan A., Grace A. A., Newell S. A., Stone D. L., Shapiro L. M., Schofield P. M., Petch M. C. Early complications after dual chamber versus single chamber pacemaker implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1994 Nov;17(11 Pt 2):2012–2015. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1994.tb03791.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hess D. S., Gertz E. W., Morady F., Scheinman M., Sudduth B. K. Permanent pacemaker implantation in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: the subclavian vein approach. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1982;8(5):453–458. doi: 10.1002/ccd.1810080504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Miller G. B., Leman R. B., Kratz J. M., Gillette P. C. Comparison of lead dislodgment and pocket infection rates after pacemaker implantation in the operating room versus the catheterization laboratory. Am Heart J. 1988 May;115(5):1048–1051. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(88)90075-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mounsey J. P., Griffith M. J., Tynan M., Gould F. K., MacDermott A. F., Gold R. G., Bexton R. S. Antibiotic prophylaxis in permanent pacemaker implantation: a prospective randomised trial. Br Heart J. 1994 Oct;72(4):339–343. doi: 10.1136/hrt.72.4.339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mueller X., Sadeghi H., Kappenberger L. Complications after single versus dual chamber pacemaker implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1990 Jun;13(6):711–714. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1990.tb02095.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Muers M. F., Arnold A. G., Sleight P. Prophylactic antibiotics for cardiac pacemaker implantation. A prospective trail. Br Heart J. 1981 Nov;46(5):539–544. doi: 10.1136/hrt.46.5.539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Parsonnet V., Bernstein A. D., Lindsay B. Pacemaker-implantation complication rates: an analysis of some contributing factors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989 Mar 15;13(4):917–921. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(89)90236-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Petch M. C. Who needs dual chamber pacing? BMJ. 1993 Jul 24;307(6898):215–216. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6898.215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Phibbs B., Marriott H. J. Complications of permanent transvenous pacing. N Engl J Med. 1985 May 30;312(22):1428–1432. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198505303122205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ramsdale D. R., Charles R. G., Rowlands D. B., Singh S. S., Gautam P. C., Faragher E. B. Antibiotic prophylaxis for pacemaker implantation: a prospective randomized trial. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1984 Sep;7(5):844–849. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1984.tb05626.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Wohl B., Peters R. W., Carliner N., Plotnick G., Fisher M. Late unheralded pacemaker pocket infection due to Staphylococcus epidermidis: a new clinical entity. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1982 Mar;5(2):190–195. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1982.tb02213.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. de Belder M. A., Linker N. J., Jones S., Camm A. J., Ward D. E. Cost implications of the British Pacing and Electrophysiology Group's recommendations for pacing. BMJ. 1992 Oct 10;305(6858):861–865. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6858.861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Heart Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES