The effect on upper extremity functions of cardiac electronic device placement on the dominant hand side

• Published in: Journal of arrhythmia Vol. 35; no. 2; pp. 279 - 286
• Main Authors: Şimşek, Ersin Çağrı, Uslu Güvendi, Ece, Şimşek, Aylin, Kocabaş, Uğur, Varış, Eser, Gürbüz, Doğaç Çağlar, Aşkin, Ayhan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Japan John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01-04-2019; John Wiley and Sons Inc; Wiley
• Subjects: arrhythmia; Cardiac arrhythmia; cardiac implantable electronic device; dominant hand side; Ethics; Implants, Artificial; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; Original; Pacemakers; Pain; Patients; Physicians; Prosthesis; Questionnaires; Shoulder; shoulder impairment; Studies; Transplants & implants; upper extremity disabilities; Veins & arteries; upper extremity disabilities; shoulder impairment; dominant hand side; arrhythmia; cardiac implantable electronic device
• DOI: 10.1002/joa3.12156
• EISSN: 1883-2148
• ISSN: 1880-4276

Background
Although cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is considered to be minor surgery, almost 60% of the patients suffer from shoulder‐related problems a short time after the procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine the possible effects of the preference of the dominant side for CIED implantation on the ipsilateral superior extremity functions.
Methods
The study included a total of 107 patients who had been living with a CIED for >6 months. Patients were separated into two groups according to the dominant hand and side of the CIED. The ipsilateral dominant‐hand group comprised those with a CIED on the same side as the dominant hand and the contralateral dominant‐hand group included patients with the CIED placed on the contralateral side to the dominant hand. Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, quick disability of the arm shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) and maximum isometric grip strength tests were used to evaluate the upper extremity disabilities.
Results
No significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of VAS pain scores (P = 0.10), QuickDASH scores (P = 0.21), and limitations of the shoulder joint range of motion (P = 0.192). The maximum isometric grip strength was significantly different in the right hands between two groups (34 [16‐95]‐40 [24‐85]) (P = 0.02).
Conclusion
The present study shows that the joint range of motion limitation, pain, and disability of the upper extremity were no different in the affected arm compared to the healthy contralateral side with respect to the placement of the CIED on the dominant or non‐dominant side.