Pacemaker Use Following Heart Transplantation.
BACKGROUND
The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation after orthotopic heart transplantation has been reported to be 2%-24%. Transplanted hearts usually exhibit sinus rhythm in the operating room following reperfusion, and most patients do not exhibit significant arrhythmias during the postoperative period. However, among the patients who do exhibit abnormalities, pacemakers may be implanted for early sinus node dysfunction but are rarely used after 6 months. Permanent pacing is often required for atrioventricular block. A different cohort of transplant patients presents later with bradycardia requiring pacemaker implantation, reported to occur in approximately 1.5% of patients. The objectives of this study were to investigate the indications for pacemaker implantation, compare the need for pacemakers following bicaval vs biatrial anastomosis, and examine the long-term outcomes of heart transplant patients who received pacemakers.


METHODS
For this retrospective, case-cohort, single-institution study, patients were identified from clinical research and administrative transplant databases. Information was supplemented with review of the medical records. Standard statistical techniques were used, with chi-square testing for categorical variables and the 2-tailedttest for continuous variables. Survival was compared with the use of log-rank methods.


RESULTS
Between January 1968 and February 2008, 1,450 heart transplants were performed at Stanford University. Eighty-four patients (5.8%) were identified as having had a pacemaker implanted. Of these patients, 65.5% (55) had the device implanted within 30 days of transplantation, and 34.5% (29) had late implantation. The mean survival of patients who had an early pacemaker implant was 6.4 years compared to 7.7 years for those with a late pacemaker implant (P<0.05). Sinus node dysfunction and heart block were the most common indications for pacemaker implantation. Starting in 1997, a bicaval technique was used for implantation. The incidence of pacemaker implantation by technique was 2.0% for bicaval and 9.1% for biatrial (P=0.001). Significantly more rejection episodes occurred in the pacemaker group (2.67 ± 2.18) compared with the no-pacemaker group (2.01 ± 2.05) (P<0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
Our results show a decreased pacemaker need after bicaval anastomosis and that more patients who needed a pacemaker after transplantation had a pretransplant diagnosis of ischemic cardiomyopathy. In our cohort, the need for a permanent pacemaker was also associated with older donor grafts and an increase in the number of treated rejection episodes.
Department of Surgery, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA ; Department of Surgery, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Hari R
HR
Mallidi
Department of Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA ; The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA ; Department of Surgery, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Michael
M
Bates
Heart transplantation; pacemaker-artificial; surgery