Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2020 Aug;18(2-3):75-81.
doi: 10.3121/cmr.2019.1507. Epub 2020 Feb 14.

Clinical Outcomes of Various Management Strategies for Symptomatic Bradycardia

Victor A Abrich  1 , Rachel J Le  2 , Siva K Mulpuru  3 , Paul A Friedman  3 , Gregory W Barsness  3 , Yong-Mei Cha  3 , Ryan J Lennon  4 , Bradley R Lewis  4 , Eric H Yang  5
Affiliations
Observational Study

Clinical Outcomes of Various Management Strategies for Symptomatic Bradycardia

Victor A Abrich et al. Clin Med Res. 2020 Aug.

Abstract

Objective: To determine clinical outcomes of various management strategies for reversible and irreversible causes of symptomatic bradycardia in the inpatient setting.

Design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: Emergency room and inpatient.

Participants: Patients presenting to the emergency department with symptomatic bradycardia.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed electronic health records of 518 patients from two Mayo Clinic campuses (Rochester and Phoenix) who presented to the emergency department with symptomatic bradycardia (heart rate ≤50 beats/minute) from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2015. Sinus bradycardia was excluded. The following management strategies were compared: observation, non-invasive management (medications with/without transcutaneous pacing), early permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation (≤2 days), and delayed PPM implantation (≥3 days). Study endpoints included length of stay and adverse events related to bradycardia (syncope, central line-associated bloodstream infections, cardiac arrest, and in-hospital mortality). Patients who received a PPM were further stratified by weekend hospital admission.

Results: Heart block occurred in 200 (38.6%) patients, and atrial arrhythmias with slow ventricular response occurred in 239 (46.1%) patients. Reversible causes of bradycardia included medication toxicity in 22 (4.2%) patients and hyperkalemia in 44 (8.5%) patients. Adverse events were similar in patients who underwent early compared to delayed PPM implantation (6.6% vs 12.5%, P=.20), whereas adverse events were higher in patients who received temporary transvenous pacing (19.1% vs 3.4%, P<.001). Weekend admissions were associated with increased temporary transvenous pacing, prolonged median time to PPM implantation by 1 day, and prolonged median length of stay by 2 days.

Conclusions: Delayed PPM implantation was not associated with an increase in adverse events. Weekend PPM implantation should be considered to reduce temporary transvenous pacing and shorten length of stay.

Keywords: Artificial; Bradycardia; Heart Block; Pacemaker.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient screening for study inclusion. [ECG, electrocardiogram; bpm, beats per minute; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; PPM, permanent pacemaker; TPM; temporary transvenous pacemaker].
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Samii SM. Indications for pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization devices. Med Clin North Am. 2015;99(4):795–804. - PubMed
    1. Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Barrett C, et al. . 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(7):e51–e156. - PubMed
    1. Greenspon AJ, Patel JD, Lau E, et al. . Trends in permanent pacemaker implantation in the United States from 1993 to 2009: increasing complexity of patients and procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(16):1540–1545. - PubMed
    1. Risgaard B, Elming H, Jensen GV, Johansen JB, Toft JC. Waiting for a pacemaker: is it dangerous? Europace. 2012;14(7):975–980. - PubMed
    1. Simpson CS, Fisher MA, Curtis MJ, et al. . Correlation of waiting time with adverse events in patients admitted for nonelective permanent pacemaker implantation. Can J Cardiol. 1998;14(6):817–821. - PubMed