Online first
Original Article
Published online: 2024-01-18

open access

Page views 525
Article views/downloads 173
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Temporary transvenous cardiac pacing in cathlab — myocardial infarction versus other causes — differences, complications, and prognosis. Data from a single-center retrospective analysis

Tomasz Skowerski1, Andrzej Kułach1, Michał Kucio1, Michał Majewski1, Łukasz Maciejewski1, Maciej Wybraniec2, Zbigniew Gąsior1
Pubmed: 38247438


Background: Transvenous temporary cardiac pacing (TTCP) is a lifesaving procedure, but the incidence of complications and prognosis depends on the underlying cause. The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics, complications, and prognosis in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) requiring TTCP vs. patients with TTCP due to other causes. Methods: The present analysis involved 244 cases in whom TTCP was performed between 2017 and 2021 in a high-volume cathlab. All the procedures were performed by an interventional cardiologist. MI constituted 46.3% of the patients (n = 113), including 63 ST-segment elevation MI patients (55.75%). Non-MI patients (control group) consisted of patients with any cause of bradycardia requiring TTCP. Results: Myocardial infarction patients requiring TTCP are younger and have a higher prevalence of hypertension and heart failure. The pacing lead is more frequently inserted during asystole/resuscitation, and pacing was needed for a longer time. MI patients required cardiac implantable electronic device implantation less frequently than in other causes (22% vs. 82%, p < 0.01). The incidence of TTCP complications did not differ. The incidence of in-hospital death was 6.5-fold higher in TTCP patients with MI. Logistic regression showed MI to be a strong predictor of in-hospital death (odds ratio: 8.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.3–57.9). Conclusions: In-hospital mortality in MI patients requiring TTCP is 6.5-fold higher than in other patients with bradycardia. The complication rate of TTCP is similar in MI and non-MI patients. It is not TTCP but the severity of MI itself and the fact that a pacing lead is frequently implanted in asystole or during resuscitation that is responsible for the higher mortality rate.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J. 2021; 42(35): 3427–3520.
  2. Ferri LA, Farina A, Lenatti L, et al. Emergent transvenous cardiac pacing using ultrasound guidance: a prospective study versus the standard fluoroscopy-guided procedure. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2016; 5(2): 125–129.
  3. Sjaus A, Fayad A. The use of subcostal echocardiographic views to guide the insertion of a right ventricular temporary transvenous pacemaker-description of the technique. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2019; 33(10): 2797–2803.
  4. Blanco P. Temporary transvenous pacing guided by the combined use of ultrasound and intracavitary electrocardiography: a feasible and safe technique. Ultrasound J. 2019; 11(1): 8.
  5. Lumia FJ, Rios JC. Temporary transvenous pacemaker therapy: an analysis of complications. Chest. 1973; 64(5): 604–608.
  6. Metkus TS, Schulman SP, Marine JE, et al. Complications and outcomes of temporary transvenous pacing: an analysis of > 360,000 patients from the national inpatient sample. Chest. 2019; 155(4): 749–757.
  7. Tjong FVY, de Ruijter UW, Beurskens NEG, et al. A comprehensive scoping review on transvenous temporary pacing therapy. Neth Heart J. 2019; 27(10): 462–473.
  8. Austin JL, Preis LK, Crampton RS, et al. Analysis of pacemaker malfunction and complications of temporary pacing in the coronary care unit. Am J Cardiol. 1982; 49(2): 301–306.
  9. Ng AC, Lau JK, Chow V, et al. Outcomes of 4838 patients requiring temporary transvenous cardiac pacing: a statewide cohort study. Int J Cardiol. 2018; 271: 98–104.
  10. Marik PE, Flemmer M, Harrison W. The risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with femoral venous catheters as compared to subclavian and internal jugular venous catheters: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2012; 40(8): 2479–2485.
  11. Diemberger I, Massaro G, Rossillo A, et al. Temporary transvenous cardiac pacing: a survey on current practice. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2020; 21(6): 420–427.
  12. Chun KJ, Gwag HB, Hwang JK, et al. Is transjugular insertion of a temporary pacemaker a safe and effective approach? PLoS One. 2020; 15(5): e0233129.
  13. Jankowski P, Topór-Mądry R, Gąsior M, et al. Management and predictors of clinical events in 75 686 patients with acute myocardial infarction. Kardiol Pol. 2022; 80(4): 468–475.