Quality assessment of pacemaker implantations in Denmark

Europace

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 107-112

  Moller M ^a   Arnsbo, P ^a   Asklund, M ^b   Christensen, P D ^c   Gadsboll N ^d   Svendsen, J H ^e   Klarholt, E ^f   Kleist, K E ^g   Mortensen, P T ^h   Pietersen, A ⁱ   Simonsen, E H ^a   Thomsen, P E B ^j   Vesterlund, T ^k   Wiggers, P ^l  

^a ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b KOLDING HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^c VIBORG HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^d BISPEBJERG HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^e University of Copenhagen   (Denmark)

^f HERNING HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^g Dronning Ingrids Hospital   (Denmark)

^h AARHUS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

ⁱ HILLERØD HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^j GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^k AALBORG UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^l Haderslev Hospital   (Denmark)

more..

Author keywords

Complications; Pacemaker; Pacemaker leads; Quality standards

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL HEART PACEMAKER; ATRIOVENTRICULAR BLOCK; BRADYCARDIA; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENMARK; DEVICE INFECTION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEART ATRIUM FIBRILLATION; HEART ATRIUM PACEMAKER; HEART PACING; HEART VENTRICLE; HEMATOMA; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; INFANT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PACEMAKER ELECTRODE; PACEMAKER FAILURE; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; PNEUMOTHORAX; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY CONTROL; REOPERATION; SICK SINUS SYNDROME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; DENMARK; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PACEMAKER, ARTIFICIAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REGISTRIES; REOPERATION;

EID: 0036556467     PISSN: 10995129     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/eupc.2002.0234     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Quality of health care. Part 2: measuring quality of care. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 966-70.
2. Rawlind M. In pursuit of quality: the national institute for clinical excellence. Lancet 1999; 353: 1079-82.
3. ACC/AHA guidelines for implantation of cardiac peacemakers and arrhythmia devices. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practical guidelines (Committee on pacemaker implantation). J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31; 1175-219.
4. Recommendations for pacemaker prescription for symptomatic bradycardia. Report of a working party of the British Pacing and Electrophysiology Group. Br Heart J 1991; 66: 185-91.
5. Annual pacemaker report from UK/Ireland. Http://ccad3. biomed.gla.ac.uk.
6. Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register. Http://www.pacemaker.dk.
7. Link MS, Estes III NAM, Griffin JJ, et al. For the Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly (PASE) Investigators. Complications of dual chamber pacemaker implantation in the elderly. J Intervent Card Electrophysiol 1998; 2: 175-9.
8. Kappenberger L, Linde C, Daubert C, et al. And the PIC study group. Pacing in hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. A randomized crossover study. Eur Heart J 1997; 18: 1249-56.
9. Mueller X, Sadeghi H, Kappenberger L. Complications after single versus dual chamber pacemaker implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1990; 13: 711-4.
10. Chauhan A, Grace AA, Newell SA, et al.. Early complications after dual chamber versus single chamber pacemaker implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1994; 17: 2012-5.
11. Aggarwal RK, Connelly DT, Ray SG, Ball J, Charles RG. Early complications of permanent pacemaker implantation: no difference between dual and single chamber systems. Br Heart J 1995; 73: 571-5.
12. Kiviniemi MS, Pirnes MA, Eranen HJ, Kettunen RV, Hatrikainen JE. Complications related to permanent pacemaker therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1999; 22: 711-20.
13. Parsonnet V, Bernstein AD, Lindsay B. Pacemaker implantation complication rate: a analysis of some contributing factors. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989; 13: 917-21.
14. Eltrafi A, Currie P, Silas JH. Permanent pacemaker insertion in a district general hospital: indications, patient characteristics, and complications. Postgrad Med J 2000; 76: 337-9.
15. Tobin K, Stewart J, Westveer D, Frumin H. Acute complications of permanent pacemaker implantation: their financial implication and relation to volume and operator experience. Am J Cardiol 2000; 85: 774-76.
16. Møller JE, Simonsen EH, Moller M. Impact of continous quality improvement on selection of pacing mode and rate of complications in permanent pacing. Heart 1997; 77:357-62.
17. Møller M, Arnsbo P for the Danish Pacemaker Register. Appraisal of pacing lead performance from the Danish Pacemaker Register. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1996; 19: 1237-36.
18. Arnsbo P, Møller M for The Danish Pacemaker Register. Updated appraisal of pacing lead performance from the Danish Pacemaker Register: the realibility of bipolar pacing leads has improved. Pacing in sick sinus syndrome. Lancet 1997; 350: 1210-6.
19. Andersen HR, Nielsen JC, Thomsen PE, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients from a randomized trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing in sick sinus syndrome. Lancet 1997; 350:1210-6.
20. Lamas GA, Orav EJ, Stambler BS, et al. For the Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly Investigators. Quality of life and clinical outcome in elderly patients treated with ventricular pacing as compared with dual-chamber pacing. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1097-104.
21. Connolly ST, Kerr CR, Gent M, et al. For the Canadian Trial of Physiological Pacing Investigators. Effects of physiologic pacing versus ventricular pacing and the risk of stroke and death due to cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1385-91.
22. European Pacemaker Registry. Http://www.heart.org.uk.ecwgcp