Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Patients Requiring a Permanent Pacemaker After Aortic Valve Replacement in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PCM) following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is uncommon but can lead to increased hospital resource utilization. Using nationwide data, we sought to (1) identify hospital, patient, and procedure-level risk factors for PCM after SAVR and (2) determine incremental resource utilization.

METHODS: We identified 659,692 patients from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database who underwent SAVR with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), mitral valvuloplasty (MVr), or mitral valve replacement (MVR) between 1998 and 2009. Patients with pre-existing pacemakers, a concomitant Maze procedure, or endocarditis were excluded. Multivariable regression analysis and propensity matching were used for comparisons of outcomes and costs.

RESULTS: Overall prevalence of PCM was 5.1% (n = 34,020; SAVR alone, 4.8%; SAVR + CABG, 4.6%; SAVR + MVr, 7.7%; SAVR + MVR, 10%). Important risk factors for PCM after SAVR were coexisting comorbidities, older age, and addition of mitral valve surgery. Hospital volume and teaching status, location, race, and sex were not associated with PCM. Among matched pairs, patients requiring PCM had lower in-hospital mortality (3.1% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001) but longer median length of stay (12 vs. 9 days, p < 0.001) and higher hospital costs ($50,000 vs. $37,000, p < 0.001), and they were less likely to be discharged home (33% vs. 36%, p < 0.001). Factors associated with later PCM (postoperative day ≥6) included SAVR + MVR, female sex, fewer comorbidities, northeastern region, and higher hospital volume. Median hospital costs were greater ($57,000 vs. $48,000, p < 0.001) among patients whose pacemakers were implanted later.

CONCLUSIONS: PCM following SAVR is associated with lower hospital mortality, but increased cost and length of stay. doi: 10.1111/jocs.12769 (J Card Surg 2016;31:476-485).

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app