FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4377019544> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4377019544 endingPage "D112" @default.
• W4377019544 startingPage "D111" @default.
• W4377019544 abstract "Abstract Introduction The implantation of traditional stimulation devices involves numerous complications, in the short and long term, among which one of the most important is represented by infections. Most patients who experience this complication undergo a lead extraction procedure. In pacemaker–dependent patients, there is often the problem of having to perform an early reimplantation after extraction. This study aims to evaluate the outcome of Micra implantation in patients previously undergoing TLE, comparing them with patients who have a Micra as their first implant. Study materials and methods. From January 2017 to November 2022, 190 leadless pacemaker implant procedures were performed in our center. Of these patients 24 underwent an extraction procedure. To evaluate the technical performance of leadless pacemakers in post–extracted patients, a comparison was made between these and the de novo implanted leadless, so as to evaluate the effectiveness of the technical specifications. In particular, all the basic characteristics of the various patients, the data of the extraction and the implantation procedure were considered. Subsequently, the values ​​of the sensing, threshold, impedance and percentage of stimulation parameters collected in the follow–ups performed by the two groups of patients at 1 month after implantation, 6 months and every year were compared. Study results. An initial analysis of the follow–up of the aforementioned classes of patients from 2017 to today already provides us with some important data: in the patients who have implanted a leadless pacemaker following extraction, in no case has there been a recurrence of infection; the success of the Micra implant was 100%. Furthermore, the analysis of the electrical parameters statistics demonstrated the absolute effectiveness of the leadless device in both classes of patients compared, without highlighting major differences. Conclusions Leadless pacemaker implantation in post–extracted patients has proven to be an effective choice as an alternative to the implantation of a traditional pacemaker, to allow the reduction of the risk of infectious complications, while still guaranteeing optimal performance" @default.
• W4377019544 created "2023-05-19" @default.
• W4377019544 creator A5033954176 @default.
• W4377019544 creator A5046449003 @default.
• W4377019544 creator A5047055466 @default.
• W4377019544 creator A5051803805 @default.
• W4377019544 creator A5076924217 @default.
• W4377019544 creator A5087588318 @default.
• W4377019544 date "2023-05-01" @default.
• W4377019544 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W4377019544 title "P185 FOLLOW–UP OF PATIENTS UNDERGOING POST–EXTRACTION LEADLESS PACEMAKER IMPLANTATION" @default.
• W4377019544 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suad111.263" @default.
• W4377019544 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4377019544 type Work @default.
• W4377019544 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4377019544 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4377019544 hasAuthorship W4377019544A5033954176 @default.
• W4377019544 hasAuthorship W4377019544A5046449003 @default.
• W4377019544 hasAuthorship W4377019544A5047055466 @default.
• W4377019544 hasAuthorship W4377019544A5051803805 @default.
• W4377019544 hasAuthorship W4377019544A5076924217 @default.
• W4377019544 hasAuthorship W4377019544A5087588318 @default.
• W4377019544 hasBestOaLocation W43770195441 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConcept C114793014 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConcept C2777093003 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConcept C2781411149 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConcept C3017863430 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConcept C81182388 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConceptScore W4377019544C114793014 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConceptScore W4377019544C127313418 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConceptScore W4377019544C141071460 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConceptScore W4377019544C2777093003 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConceptScore W4377019544C2781411149 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConceptScore W4377019544C3017863430 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConceptScore W4377019544C71924100 @default.
• W4377019544 hasConceptScore W4377019544C81182388 @default.
• W4377019544 hasIssue "Supplement_D" @default.
• W4377019544 hasLocation W43770195441 @default.
• W4377019544 hasOpenAccess W4377019544 @default.
• W4377019544 hasPrimaryLocation W43770195441 @default.
• W4377019544 hasRelatedWork W2002120878 @default.
• W4377019544 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W4377019544 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W4377019544 hasRelatedWork W2118496982 @default.
• W4377019544 hasRelatedWork W2364998975 @default.
• W4377019544 hasRelatedWork W2369162477 @default.
• W4377019544 hasRelatedWork W2369768841 @default.
• W4377019544 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W4377019544 hasRelatedWork W4238867864 @default.
• W4377019544 hasRelatedWork W2525756941 @default.
• W4377019544 hasVolume "25" @default.
• W4377019544 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4377019544 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4377019544 workType "article" @default.