Browsing by Subject "Pacemaker"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Impact of sarcoidosis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: Insight from nationwide readmission database 2016-2019
    (Elsevier, 2025) Patel, Kunal N.; Bajaj, Suryansh; Majmundar, Monil; Majmundar, Vidit; Agrawal, Ankit; Zala, Harshvardhan; Doshi, Rajkumar; Singh, Karandeep; Kaur, Avleen; Patel, Vyoma N.; Gonuguntla, Karthik; Sattar, Yasar; Kalra, Ankur; Medicine, School of Medicine
    It is not well-known if valve replacement outcomes differ in patients with sarcoidosis, especially in aortic valve intervention, where the pressure gradients are physiologically high. In this retrospective study, we included all patients who underwent surgical/transcatheter aortic valve replacement from the Nationwide Readmission Database (2016-2019), and then divided them into those with and without sarcoidosis. Logistic and cox proportional hazard regression models were used. In-hospital mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury, paravalvular leak, 30-day pacemaker implantation, and 30-day heart failure readmission were similar in patients with and without sarcoidosis. Thus, sarcoidosis did not affect the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. Further prospective studies are needed in this patient subgroup to support clinical decision-making.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Involving patients as key stakeholders in the design of cardiovascular implantable electronic device data dashboards: Implications for patient care
    (Elsevier, 2020-05-11) Daley, Carly; Ghahari, Romisa Rohani; Drouin, Michelle; Ahmed, Ryan; Wagner, Shauna; Reining, Lauren; Coupe, Amanda; Toscos, Tammy; Mirro, Michael; BioHealth Informatics, School of Informatics and Computing
    Background: Data from remote monitoring (RM) of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) currently are not accessible to patients despite demand. The typical RM report contains multiple pages of data for trained technicians to read and interpret and requires a patient-centered approach to be curated to meet individual user needs. Objective: The purpose of this study was to understand which RM data elements are important to patients and to gain design insights for displaying meaningful data in a digital dashboard. Methods: Adults with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers (PMs) participated in this 2-phase, user-centered design study. Phase 1 included a card-sorting activity to prioritize device data elements. Phase 2 included one-on-one design sessions to gather insights and feedback about a visual display (labels and icons). Results: Twenty-nine adults (mean age 71.8 ± 11.6 years; 51.7% female; 89.7% white) participated. Priority data elements for both ICD and PM groups in phase 1 (n = 19) were related to cardiac episodes, device activity, and impedance values. Recommended replacement time for battery was high priority for the PM group but not the ICD group. Phase 2 (n = 10) revealed that patients would like descriptive, nontechnical terms to depict the data and icons that are intuitive and informative. Conclusion: This user-centered design study demonstrated that patients with ICDs and PMs were able to prioritize specific data from a comprehensive list of data elements that they had never seen before. This work contributes to the goal of sharing RM data with patients in a way that optimizes the RM feature of CIEDs for improving patient outcomes and clinical care.