Abstract

BackgroundWe investigated the impact of a transvenous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement on outcomes and arteriovenous vascular access (VA) patency among chronic hemodialysis patients.MethodsThis 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.ResultsDuring 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.ConclusionsDespite 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.

Highlights

  • 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

  • The precise prevalence of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in chronic hemodialysis patients is unknown, there is a frequent need for CIED placement, such as with a permanent pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for arrhythmia treatment or sudden cardiac death prevention [1,2,3]

  • This study investigated the impact of transvenous CIEDs on long-term clinical outcomes in chronic hemodialysis patients and compared outcomes among patients with ipsilateral VA vs contralateral VA, relative to CIED location

Read more

Summary

Introduction

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. The precise prevalence of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in chronic hemodialysis patients is unknown, there is a frequent need for CIED placement, such as with a permanent pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for arrhythmia treatment or sudden cardiac death prevention [1,2,3]. For patients with CKD requiring hemodialysis and a CIED, the general recommendation is for arteriovenous vascular access (VA) on the upper limb contralateral to the CIED [2, 5]. We investigated the effects of CIEDs on VA patency in these patients

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call