|
|
|
| Comparative study on perioperative recovery between de novo leadless pacing and transvenous pacing |
| WANG Dongxue, LIU Xiaoyu, ZHANG Changying, ZHENG Jie, WANG Ruxing |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective To compare perioperative recovery outcomes between de novo leadless pacing and dualchamber transvenous pacing therapies. MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on clinical data of 12 patients undergoing de novo leadless pacemaker (LPM) implantation and 136 patients undergoing dualchamber transvenous pacemaker (TPM) implantation. By propensity score matching, 11 patients implanted with LPM (LPM group) and 11 patients implanted with dualchamber TPM (TPM group) were selected. The average postoperative hospitalization days and wound recovery of patients were evaluated. Pain visual analogue scale (VAS) and modified Barthel index (MBI) were separately applied to evaluate the degree of pain and functional status of daily living activities in the two groups of patients on postoperative day, postoperative day 1 and 2, and on the day of discharge. ResultsThe average postoperative hospitalization days of the LPM group was shorter than that of the TPM group ［(1.6±0.7) daysvs. (3.1±0.3) days, P<0.01］, while the average wound healing time was also shorter than that of the TPM group ［(1.1±0.3) daysvs. (2.6±0.8) days, P<0.01］. The pain VAS scores of the LPM group were lower than those of the TPM group on postoperative day ［(1.5±0.7) pointsvs. (45±0.8) points, P<0.01］, postoperative day 1 ［(0.5±0.5) pointsvs. (4.0±0.6) points, P<0.01］, postoperative day 2 ［0vs. (2.4±0.5) points, P<0.01］, and on the day of discharge ［0vs. (0.5±0.5) points, P=0.005］. The MBI values of the LPM group were all higher than those of the TPM group on postoperative day 1 ［(75.6±5.3) pointsvs. (53.6±2.3) points, P<0.01］, postoperative day 2 ［(93.6±6.4) pointsvs. (55.6±2.3) points, P<0.01］, and on the day of discharge ［(95.5±5.8) pointsvs. (89.9±4.7) points, P=0.024］. Conclusion De novo LPM therapy proves to be superior to dualchamber TPM therapy with clinical advantages in rapid perioperative recovery of patients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
