uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Permanent pacemaker implantation early and late after heart transplantation: clinical indication, risk factors and prognostic implications
Heart Rhythm Centre, Harefield Hospital, Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesex, UK.
Heart Rhythm Centre, Harefield Hospital, Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesex, UK.
Show others and affiliations
2011 (English)In: The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, ISSN 1053-2498, Vol. 30, no 11, 1257-1265 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]


Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM) early after cardiac transplantation has been shown not to predict a worse outcome. However, the requirement for pacing late after transplantation and its prognostic implications are not fully known. We describe the clinical indications, risk factors and long-term outcome in patients who required pacing early and late after transplantation.


The transplant database, medical records and pacing database/records were reviewed for all patients undergoing de novo orthotopic cardiac transplantation (n = 389) at our institution between January 1995 and May 2006.


A total of 48 patients (12.3%) received a pacemaker after transplantation. Of these patients, 30 were paced early, pre-hospital discharge (25 ± 19 days post-transplantation), and 18 patients had late pacing (3.0 ± 3.3 years post-transplantation). There were no differences in clinical characteristics, use of anti-arrhythmic drugs or length-of-stay post-transplantation between early and late groups. Early indications for pacing were more often sino-atrial (SA) disease (24 of 30, 80%), whereas atrio-ventricular (AV) disease was more likely to occur later (p = 0.03). Risk factors for PPM included use of biatrial anastomosis (p = 0.001) and donor age (p = 0.002). Prior rejection was a univariate but not multivariate (p = 0.09) predictor of the need for PPM. Development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy was not predictive. There was no significant difference in mortality between late and early PPM patients or between late PPM patients and the non-paced patients who survived transplantation and initial stay.


Patients who required PPM late after orthotopic cardiac transplantation had a prognosis comparable to those paced early and those who did not require PPM. The independent risk factors for PPM were biatrial anastomosis and increasing donor age. SA-nodal dysfunction as an indication for PPM was more prevalent early after transplantation, whereas atrioventricular (AV) disease more commonly presented late. The requirement for pacing late after transplantation was not associated with rejection or cardiac allograft vasculopathy.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 30, no 11, 1257-1265 p.
National Category
Clinical Medicine
Research subject
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-220480DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2011.05.010PubMedID: 21783383OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-220480DiVA: diva2:705348
Available from: 2014-03-16 Created: 2014-03-16 Last updated: 2014-03-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Mortsell, David H
In the same journal
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
Clinical Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 198 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link