Procedure times, complication rates, and survival times associated with single-chamber versus dual-chamber pacemaker implantation in dogs with clinical signs of bradyarrhythmia: 54 cases (2004–2009)
- Autores: David W. Genovese, Amara H. Estrada, Herbert W. Maisenbacher, Bonnie A. Heatwole
- Localización: JAVMA: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, ISSN-e 0003-1488, Vol. 242, Nº. 2, 2013, págs. 230-236
- Idioma: inglés
- Enlaces
-
Resumen
Objective—To compare procedure times and major and minor complication rates associated with single-chamber versus dual-chamber pacemaker implantation and with 1-lead, 2-lead, and 3-lead pacemaker implantation in dogs with clinical signs of bradyarrhythmia.
Design—Retrospective case series.
Animals—54 dogs that underwent pacemaker implantation because of clinical signs of bradyarrhythmia.
Procedures—Medical records of dogs that received pacemakers between July 2004 and December 2009 were reviewed for information regarding signalment, diagnosis, pacemaker implantation, pacemaker type, complications, and survival time. Analyses were performed to determine significant differences in anesthesia time, procedure time, and outcome for dogs on the basis of pacing mode and number of pacing leads.
Results—28 of 54 (51.9%) dogs received single-chamber pacemakers and 26 (48.1%) received dual-chamber pacemakers. Mean ± SD procedural time was significantly longer for patients with dual-chamber pacemakers (133.5 ± 51.3 minutes) than for patients with single-chamber pacemakers (94.9 ± 37.0 minutes), and procedure time increased significantly as the number of leads increased (1 lead, 102.3 ± 51.1 minutes; 2 leads, 114.9 ± 24.8 minutes; 3 leads, 158.2 ± 8.5 minutes). Rates of major and minor complications were not significantly different between dogs that received single-chamber pacemakers and those that received dual-chamber pacemakers or among dogs grouped on the basis of the number of pacing leads placed.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Although dual-chamber pacemaker implantation did result in increased procedural and anesthesia times, compared with single-chamber pacemaker implantation, this did not result in a higher complication rate.
