Browsing by Author "Defaye, Pascal (7003896138)"

To study the proportion of leadless pacemaker (LL-PM) implants and the factors influencing the choice of LL-PM vs. transvenous pacemaker (TV-PM) across tertiary centres in Europe with routine availability of the LL-PM. A European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) prospective snapshot survey using electronically distributed questionnaire sent to participating centres. Participating tertiary cardiac pacing centres prospectively included consecutive patients implanted between November 2018 and January 2019. Questions covered standards of care and policies used for patient management, focusing particularly on the reasons for choosing LL-PM vs. TV-PM. Overall, 21 centres from four countries (France, Netherlands, Spain, and Italy) participated, with eventual data from 798 patients (n = 472, 59% male). With 69 implants, LL-PM represented only 9% of all implants and 36% of the single-chamber pacing group; double-chamber transvenous pacemakers were implanted in 528 patients and biventricular (cardiac resynchronization pacemaker) in 79. The two major reasons reported in favour of LL-PM implantation were an anticipated high risk of infection or low rate of ventricular pacing. Compared to TV-PM, LL-PM patients were more often male (74% vs. 54%, P = 0.009), with greater proportion of valvular heart disease (45% vs. 35%, P = 0.01) and atrial fibrillation (AF; 65% vs. 23%, P < 0.0001), with significantly more comorbidities (≥ one comorbidity, 66% vs. 52%, P = 0.02). This contemporary multicentre European survey shows that LL-PM constitutes a small proportion of all PM implants. Patients implanted with LL-PM were more likely to have AF and a high anticipated risk of infection. © 2020 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

Aims: To develop quality indicators (QIs) that may be used to evaluate the quality of care and outcomes for adults with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods and results: We followed the ESC methodology for QI development. This methodology involved (i) the identification of the domains of AF care for the diagnosis and management of AF (by a group of experts including members of the ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines Task Force for AF); (ii) the construction of candidate QIs (including a systematic review of the literature); and (iii) the selection of the final set of QIs (using a modified Delphi method). Six domains of care for the diagnosis and management of AF were identified: (i) Patient assessment (baseline and follow-up), (ii) Anticoagulation therapy, (iii) Rate control strategy, (iv) Rhythm control strategy, (v) Risk factor management, and (vi) Outcomes measures, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). In total, 17 main and 17 secondary QIs, which covered all six domains of care for the diagnosis and management of AF, were selected. The outcome domain included measures on the consequences and treatment of AF, as well as PROMs. Conclusion: This document defines six domains of AF care (patient assessment, anticoagulation, rate control, rhythm control, risk factor management, and outcomes), and provides 17 main and 17 secondary QIs for the diagnosis and management of AF. It is anticipated that implementation of these QIs will improve the quality of AF care. © 2020 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.