4.1 Article

Lumenless Pacing Leads: Performance and Extraction in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease

Journal

PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 42-47

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/pace.12508

Keywords

pacing; pediatrics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundPediatric and congenital heart disease (CHD) patients requiring permanent pacing present unique challenges, including need for long duration of implant, small size, and structural abnormalities. We report 6 years of experience with a novel 4.1-Fr lumenless pacing lead (model 3830, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) in this population. MethodsRetrospective review of M3830 leads implanted at a pediatric center from 2005 to 2011. Data were compared to a population with a conventional pacing lead (model 1488, St. Jude Medical Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA). ResultsA total of 193 patients with 198 model 3830 leads (125 atrial, 73 ventricular) were enrolled. CHD was present in 121 (63%). Age and weight at implant were 16.6 8.5 years and 51.7 +/- 23.5 kg, respectively. Length of follow-up was 26 +/- 19 months (range 0-73). At implant, mean sensing and capture thresholds were good and remained stable over time. There were no significant differences in electrical performance compared to 101 leads in the comparison group. Implant complications were rare. Follow-up complications occurred in 4% of the M3830 leads and 16% of M1488 leads. Eleven M3830 leads required extraction. All were extracted without complications using only manual traction. There were three deaths in each group. One death in the M1488 group occurred during lead extraction. No other deaths were lead related. ConclusionDuring up to 6 years of use in pediatric and CHD patients, the M3830 lead has demonstrated excellent efficacy, a low rate of complications, and straightforward extractability relative to traditional pacing leads.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available