HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cooper, M. M. Articles by Spotnitz, H. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cooper, M. M. Articles by Spotnitz, H. M.

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol 104, 812-816, Copyright © 1992 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and The Western Thoracic Surgical Association

ARTICLES

Permanent pacing following cardiac transplantation

MM Cooper, CR Smith, EA Rose, SJ Schneller and HM Spotnitz
Department of Surgery, Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, N.Y.

Permanent pacemakers were inserted in 20 of 439 patients who had received 453 orthotopic cardiac allografts since 1980 at the Columbia- Presbyterian Medical Center. Mean age at transplantation was 45 +/- 4 (SEM) years (range 10 to 64). Pacemakers were inserted an average of 2.4 +/- 1 months after transplantation (range 0.4 to 29), 16 of 20 (80%) within the first month. Indications included sinus bradycardia or sinus arrest in 15 (75%), third-degree heart block in 2 (10%), and both sinus node and atrioventricular node dysfunction in 3 (15%). Rejection episodes and pacemaker insertion were associated in 8 patients (40%). Pacing modes included DDD (7 patients, 35%), AAI,R (7 patients, 35%), VVI,R (3 patients, 15%), DDD,R (2 patients, 10%), and VVI (1 patient, 5%). There was no pacing-related morbidity or mortality. Fourteen of 20 patients (70%) are alive and well 3 to 48 months (mean 24 +/- 4) after transplantation. Late follow-up indicated that atrioventricular node dysfunction resolved in one of two patients, sinoatrial node dysfunction improved or resolved in 7/13 patients, and no atrioventricular block developed in 11 (8 to 37 months, mean 22 +/- 3). Permanent pacing can be safely performed following orthotopic cardiac transplantation, predominantly for sinus node dysfunction. The requirement for pacing may reflect ongoing or new onset rejection and patients should therefore be evaluated accordingly. Dual-chamber pacing is probably not necessary unless atrioventricular node dysfunction is coexistent. Further, as most transplant recipients return to an active life-style, AAI,R may be the preferred mode of pacing.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. M. Spotnitz Surgical Implantation of Pacemakers and Automatic Defibrillators Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 1395 - 1428. [Full Text]

				A. Koch, A. Remppis, T. J. Dengler, P. A. Schnabel, S. Hagl, and F.-U. Sack Influence of different implantation techniques on AV valve competence after orthotopic heart transplantation Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., November 1, 2005; 28(5): 717 - 723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. M. Spotnitz Pacemakers and Automatic Defibrillators Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 1293 - 1326. [Full Text]

				C. Blanche, L. S. C. Czer, M. C. Fishbein, J. J. M. Takkenberg, and A. Trento Permanent Pacemaker for Rejection Episodes After Heart Transplantation: A Poor Prognostic Sign Ann. Thorac. Surg., November 1, 1995; 60(5): 1263 - 1266. [Abstract] [Full Text]