Comparison of mid-term clinical experience with steroid-eluting active and passive fixation ventricular electrodes in children.
ABSTRACT Although active fixation ventricular leads seem to have advantages over passive fixation leads, this study compares the follow-up results of active and passive fixation leads in children. We evaluated the implantation and follow-up data of 41 children with active (Accufix II DEC, group 1) (n = 20) or passive (Membrane E, group 2) (n = 21) fixation, steroid-eluting ventricular leads. All but one of the patients in group 1 completed the 12-month follow-up. The mean follow-up period in group 2 was 10.4 +/- 2.9 months (range 3-12 months, median 12 months). In both groups the mean pacing threshold was measured as 0.51 +/- 0.09 V versus 0.48 +/- 0.15 V (P > 0.05) at 0.5-ms pulse width, mean R wave amplitude as 9.9 +/- 2.5 mV versus 9.4 +/- 3.2 mV (P > 0.05), and mean impedance as 557 +/- 92 omega versus 664 +/- 160 omega (P < 0.05), respectively, at implantation. After the first week of pacing, mean threshold values in group 1 were significantly lower than those of group 2 (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively). During the follow-up period, lead impedance measurements did not show a significant difference between the two groups. In one patient from group 1, the lead (by unscrewing) was removed easily because of pacemaker pocket infection. No lead dislodgement or helix deformation occurred in group 1. Nevertheless, in one patient from group 2, the lead was extracted at 4-month postimplantation because of lead displacement. We conclude that the steroid-eluting active fixation lead (Accufix II DEC) have advantages of easier implantation and lower acute and chronic stimulation thresholds compared to the passive fixation lead (Membrane E). Therefore, Accufix II DEC is superior to Membrane E, and it is a better first choice in children with an implanted single chamber ventricular pacemaker.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study was undertaken to examine the actuarial survival of endocardial pacing leads in a pediatric population. We prospectively followed 148 children and young adults age 4 months to 38 years. Of these, 58 had normal cardiac anatomy and 90 had surgically corrected congenital heart disease. A total of 213 leads were inserted in these patients. Actuarial analysis showed that at 5 years 76.0% of the pacemaker leads were still in use. The reasons for abandonment included death (10), exit block (8), lead fracture (8), adapter malfunction (7), and other including infection, lead migration, and pacemaker malfunction (12). Excluding deaths, an actuarial survival curve was constructed. Stepwise discriminant analysis and independent measures of association showed a significant difference in lead abandonment when the leads placed in the atrium were compared to those placed in the ventricle (30 vs 5; P < 0.0005). Lead insulating material, cardiac anatomy, and/or indication for pacemaker placement had no statistically significant impact on lead survival.Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 07/1993; 16(7 Pt 1):1363-7. · 1.75 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: An increased interest has developed in active fixation leads for several reasons. Exit block is an uncommon complication that is seen with both active and passive fixation leads. Exit block has not been a significant problem with passive fixation steroid-eluting leads and has been treated with these leads. A new steroid-eluting active fixation lead was examined for its performance in patients in whom exit block had previously occurred. The lead function was evaluated prospectively in 24 patients with a history of exit block (15 ventricular and 9 atrial). The results in patients with atrial exit block are encouraging with an average chronic stimulation threshold of 0.19 msecs at 2.5 volts. Results in the ventricle are less encouraging with 3 occurrences of recurrent exit block in 15 patients; however, the remaining patients had a good mean threshold of 0.21 +/- 0.11 msecs at 2.5 volts. There were a remarkable number of non-lead related complications suggesting that this is a substantially different group than routine implantations.Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 12/1994; 17(11 Pt 2):2042-6. · 1.75 Impact Factor
- Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 02/1992; 15(1):95-107. · 1.75 Impact Factor