QJM Advance Access originally published online on May 27, 2009
QJM 2009 102(7):485-490; doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcp066
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delays and adverse clinical outcomes associated with unrecognized pacing indications
From the Department of Cardiology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE7 7DN, UK
Address correspondence to Dr M.S. Cunnington c/o Dr J.M. McComb, Department of Cardiology, Freeman Hospital, Freeman Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE7 7DN, UK. email: mike.cunnington{at}ncl.ac.uk
Received 20 February 2009 and in revised form 28 February 2009
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Background: A recent UK audit showed that a significant proportion of patients who received pacemakers had pacing indications previously overlooked, leading to significant delays to pacemaker implantation.
Aim: To investigate the reasons for, and morbidity associated with, overlooked pacing indications.
Design: Prospective observational study in a UK regional pacing centre and its referring district hospitals.
Methods: Hospital records from referring and implanting centres were reviewed for 95 consecutive patients undergoing first pacemaker implant to determine symptoms, investigations and hospitalisations occurring after documentation of a pacing indication.
Results: Thirty-three of ninety-five patients (35%) had a pacing indication overlooked, which was Class I in 14 patients and Class IIa in 19. Reasons for not making a pacing referral in these patients included: failure to recognize the indication in 14, making adjustments to potentially culprit medication in 15 and requesting additional ‘confirmatory’ tests in 4. Twenty-six patients (79%) with missed indications experienced adverse events after documentation of an indication, and before receiving a pacemaker: 23 had ongoing symptoms (including one cardiac arrest), three received temporary pacing wires and 18 were hospitalized with symptoms related to cardiac rhythm. Twenty-seven patients (82%) had a total of 38 additional specialist investigations after documentation of a pacing indication.
Conclusions: Documentation of an indication for pacing failed to trigger referral for permanent pacing in 35% of patients. This failure led to significant delays, morbidity and use of health service resource, which may have been avoided if timely recognition of the pacing indication had prompted referral. Failure to recognize pacing indications and reassessing symptoms and repeating investigation after changes to medication, often required for the management of associated tachyarrhythmias or other medical conditions, contribute to these delays, perhaps unnecessarily.