AIM: To compare the performance of steroid eluting epicardial and endocardial leads in infants and children requiring permanent pacing. METHODS: Evaluation of pacing and sensing characteristics, impedances, and longevity of 159 steroid eluting leads implanted in 95 children. Group A consisted of 24 children weighing less than 15 kg with 15 endocardial leads (five atrial, 10 ventricular) and 19 epicardial leads (five atrial, 14 ventricular). Group B consisted of 71 children weighing more than 15 kg with 106 endocardial leads (56 atrial, 58 ventricular) and 19 epicardial leads (nine atrial, 10 ventricular). RESULTS: Group A: Stimulation thresholds were lower for ventricular endocardial leads at implant (mean (SD) 0.84 (0.54) v 1.59 (0.64) V, p < 0.014) and at two year follow up (ventricular 0.64 (0.24) v 1.65 (0.69) V, p < 0.003). Impedance and sensing thresholds did not differ significantly at implant and follow up. Group B: Stimulation thresholds were lower for ventricular endocardial leads at implant (0.72 (0.48) v 1.48 (0.58) V, p < 0.001) and at follow up (0.88 (0.46) v 1.55 (0.96) V, p < 0.009). Impedance did not differ. Sensing thresholds were also better for ventricular endocardial leads at follow up (9.1 (5.2) v 14.2 (6.4) mV, p < 0.02). Complications requiring intervention occurred in both groups (n = 7 for endocardial v n = 18 for epicardial leads). CONCLUSIONS: Endocardial and epicardial steroid eluting leads have comparable performance in the paediatric population.
AIM: To compare the performance of steroid eluting epicardial and endocardial leads in infants and children requiring permanent pacing. METHODS: Evaluation of pacing and sensing characteristics, impedances, and longevity of 159 steroid eluting leads implanted in 95 children. Group A consisted of 24 children weighing less than 15 kg with 15 endocardial leads (five atrial, 10 ventricular) and 19 epicardial leads (five atrial, 14 ventricular). Group B consisted of 71 children weighing more than 15 kg with 106 endocardial leads (56 atrial, 58 ventricular) and 19 epicardial leads (nine atrial, 10 ventricular). RESULTS: Group A: Stimulation thresholds were lower for ventricular endocardial leads at implant (mean (SD) 0.84 (0.54) v 1.59 (0.64) V, p < 0.014) and at two year follow up (ventricular 0.64 (0.24) v 1.65 (0.69) V, p < 0.003). Impedance and sensing thresholds did not differ significantly at implant and follow up. Group B: Stimulation thresholds were lower for ventricular endocardial leads at implant (0.72 (0.48) v 1.48 (0.58) V, p < 0.001) and at follow up (0.88 (0.46) v 1.55 (0.96) V, p < 0.009). Impedance did not differ. Sensing thresholds were also better for ventricular endocardial leads at follow up (9.1 (5.2) v 14.2 (6.4) mV, p < 0.02). Complications requiring intervention occurred in both groups (n = 7 for endocardial v n = 18 for epicardial leads). CONCLUSIONS: Endocardial and epicardial steroid eluting leads have comparable performance in the paediatric population.
Authors: G C Beaufort-Krol; H Mulder; D Nagelkerke; T W Waterbolk; M T Bink-Boelkens Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Elizabeth B Fortescue; Charles I Berul; Frank Cecchin; Edward P Walsh; John K Triedman; Mark E Alexander Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Karol Bartczak; Arkadiusz Ammer; Maciej Bartczak; Krzysztof Kaczmarek; Ryszard Jaszewski Journal: Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol Date: 2014-03-27