BACKGROUND: Permanent pacing (PM) in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) presents unique challenges-with little known about the long-term outcomes. METHODS: Pacemaker complications and reinterventions were reviewed over a 38-year period and were grouped by epicardial or endocardial approaches. RESULTS: The average age at intervention was 37 ± 19 years for 106 patients and 259 PM procedures were performed (2.4 ± 2 per patient). From the first PM procedure, patients were followed for 11.6 ± 14 years. The most common indications for initial PM intervention were heart block (25%) and sinus node dysfunction (20%), yet reintervention was driven primarily by lead failure (49%). Endocardial systems were initially implanted in 73 patients (67%). Epicardial pacing was more common in patients with complex CHD (p = 0.006), cyanosis (p < 0.001), residual shunts (0.01), or Ebstein's anomaly (p = 0.01). Fifty-one devices (28%) developed lead or generator complications. Epicardial systems were most likely to develop lead failure (p < 0.0001), predominantly in the ventricular lead (p < 0.0001). Endocardial systems were found to be more durable than the epicardial systems (p = 0.023), and Ebstein's anomaly or an epicardial system was an independent predictor of lead failure. CONCLUSIONS: Permanent pacing in CHD is associated with considerable morbidity and the need for repeat intervention, especially in those with Ebstein's anomaly. Epicardial pacing systems appear to have a higher incidence of lead failure and are significantly less durable in this group.
BACKGROUND: Permanent pacing (PM) in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) presents unique challenges-with little known about the long-term outcomes. METHODS: Pacemaker complications and reinterventions were reviewed over a 38-year period and were grouped by epicardial or endocardial approaches. RESULTS: The average age at intervention was 37 ± 19 years for 106 patients and 259 PM procedures were performed (2.4 ± 2 per patient). From the first PM procedure, patients were followed for 11.6 ± 14 years. The most common indications for initial PM intervention were heart block (25%) and sinus node dysfunction (20%), yet reintervention was driven primarily by lead failure (49%). Endocardial systems were initially implanted in 73 patients (67%). Epicardial pacing was more common in patients with complex CHD (p = 0.006), cyanosis (p < 0.001), residual shunts (0.01), or Ebstein's anomaly (p = 0.01). Fifty-one devices (28%) developed lead or generator complications. Epicardial systems were most likely to develop lead failure (p < 0.0001), predominantly in the ventricular lead (p < 0.0001). Endocardial systems were found to be more durable than the epicardial systems (p = 0.023), and Ebstein's anomaly or an epicardial system was an independent predictor of lead failure. CONCLUSIONS: Permanent pacing in CHD is associated with considerable morbidity and the need for repeat intervention, especially in those with Ebstein's anomaly. Epicardial pacing systems appear to have a higher incidence of lead failure and are significantly less durable in this group.
Authors: C A Warnes; R Liberthson; G K Danielson; A Dore; L Harris; J I Hoffman; J Somerville; R G Williams; G D Webb Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: J S Sachweh; J F Vazquez-Jimenez; F A Schöndube; S H Daebritz; H Dörge; E G Mühler; B J Messmer Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 4.191
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: Chin C Lee; Khuyen Do; Sati Patel; Steven K Carlson; Tomas Konecny; Philip M Chang; Rahul N Doshi Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Geoffrey D Huntley; Abhishek J Deshmukh; Carole A Warnes; Suraj Kapa; Alexander C Egbe Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Faisal F Syed; Christopher V DeSimone; Elisa Ebrille; Prakriti Gaba; Dorothy J Ladewig; Susan B Mikell; Scott H Suddendorf; Emily J Gilles; Andrew J Danielsen; Markéta Lukášová; Jiří Wolf; Pavel Leinveber; Miroslav Novák; Zdeněk Stárek; Tomas Kara; Charles J Bruce; Paul A Friedman; Samuel J Asirvatham Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2015-08
Authors: Christopher V DeSimone; Daniel C DeSimone; Nikhil A Patel; Paul A Friedman; Samuel J Asirvatham Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 1.900