4.6 Article

Pneumothorax in cardiac pacing: a population-based cohort study of 28 860 Danish patients

Journal

EUROPACE
Volume 14, Issue 8, Pages 1132-1138

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/eus054

Keywords

Cardiac pacing; Pneumothorax; Complication; Risk factor; Venous access; Cephalic vein cut-down

Funding

  1. Institute of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University
  2. Biotronik Denmark
  3. Medtronic Denmark A/S
  4. St Jude Medical
  5. ViCare Medical A/S
  6. Gang-stedfonden
  7. Central Denmark Region Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To identify risk factors for pneumothorax treated with a chest tube after cardiac pacing device implantation in a population-based cohort. A nationwide cohort study was performed based on data on 28 860 patients from the Danish Pacemaker Register, which included all Danish patients who received their first pacemaker (PM) or cardiac resynchronization device from 1997 to 2008. Multiple logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95 confidence intervals for the association between risk factors and pneumothorax treated with a chest tube. The median age was 77 years (25th and 75th percentile: 6984) and 55 were male (n 15 785). A total of 190 patients (0.66) were treated for pneumothorax, which was more often in women [aOR 1.9 (1.42.6)], and in patients with age 80 years [aOR 1.4 (1.01.9)], a prior history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [aOR 3.9 (1.69.5)], implantation of a dual-chamber PM [aOR 1.5 (1.02.2)], venous access with subclavian vein puncture [aOR 7.8 (4.912.5)], venous access with both subclavian vein puncture and cephalic vein cut-down [aOR 5.7 (3.010.8)], and implantation in a non-university centre [aOR 2.1 (1.62.9)]. Pneumothorax treated with a chest tube remains a clinically important problem in device therapy. The cephalic vein cut-down technique should be applied whenever possible to avoid this complication.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available