A retrospective survey comparing suture techniques regarding the risk of permanent epicardial pacemaker implantation after ventricular septal defect closure

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorAyık M.F.
dc.contributor.authorŞişli E.
dc.contributor.authorDereli M.
dc.contributor.authorŞahan Y.Ö.
dc.contributor.authorŞahin H.
dc.contributor.authorLevent R.E.
dc.contributor.authorAtay Y.
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-27T08:02:34Z
dc.date.available2019-10-27T08:02:34Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.departmentEge Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: The aim of this study is to compare the continuous and combined suturing techniques in regards to the needing epicardial pacing at the time of weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass (EP-CPB) and to evaluate permanent epicardial pacemaker (PEP) implantation in patients who had undergone surgical ventricular septal defect (VSD) closure. Methods: This single-centre retrospective survey includes 365 patients who had consecutively undergone VSD closure between January 2006 and October 2015. Results: The median age and weight of the patients were 15 months (range 27 days – 56.9 years) and 10 kg (range 3.5 – 100 kg), respectively. Continuous and combined suturing techniques were utilised in 302 (82.7%) and 63 (17.3%) patients, respectively. While 25 (6.8%) patients required EP-CPB, PEP was implanted in eight (2.2%) patients. Comparison of the continuous and combined suturing techniques regarding the need for EP-CPB (72% vs. 28%, P=0.231) and PEP implantation (87.5% vs. 12.5%, P=1.0) were not statistically significant. The rate of PEP implantation in patients with perimembraneous VSD without extension and perimembraneous VSD with inlet extension did not reveal significant difference between the suture techniques (P=1.0 and P=0.16, respectively). In both univariate and multivariate analyses, large VSD (P=0.001; OR 8.63; P=0.011) and perimembraneous VSD with inlet extension (P<0.001; OR 9.02; P=0.005) had a significant influence on PEP implantation. Conclusion: Both suturing techniques were comparable regarding the need for EP-CPB or PEP implantation. Caution should be exercised when closing a large perimembraneous VSD with inlet extension. © 2018, Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.21470/1678-9741-2018-0010en_US
dc.identifier.endpage346en_US
dc.identifier.issn0102-7638
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.pmid30184030en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage339en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2018-0010
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11454/25206
dc.identifier.volume33en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascularen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBrazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgeryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectArtificialen_US
dc.subjectCongenitalen_US
dc.subjectHeart blocken_US
dc.subjectHeart defectsen_US
dc.subjectHeart septal defectsen_US
dc.subjectPacemakeren_US
dc.subjectSuture techniqueen_US
dc.subjectVentricularen_US
dc.titleA retrospective survey comparing suture techniques regarding the risk of permanent epicardial pacemaker implantation after ventricular septal defect closureen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu