Literature DB >> 24184788

Short- and long-term electrical performance of the 5086MRI pacing lead.

John Rickard1, Milos Taborsky2, David Bello3, W B Johnson4, Brian Ramza5, Yanping Chang6, Bruce L Wilkoff7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Owing to potential patient harm, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices has traditionally been contraindicated. Following the EnRhythm MRI SureScan Study, an MR conditional pacemaker with modified leads was approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Electrical and handling characteristics of MR conditional pacing leads compared with those of traditional leads have not been established.
OBJECTIVE: To compare short- and long-term performance of the Medtronic 5086MRI lead with that of the Medtronic 5076 lead.
METHODS: Patients (n = 466) implanted with 2 5086MRI leads (EnRhythm MRI Study) and 316 patients implanted with 2 5076 leads in 2 prospective clinical investigations were analyzed.
RESULTS: Electrical characteristics were stable in both groups at implant and at 12 months and were clinically acceptable throughout. Ventricular capture thresholds were slightly higher at 12 months for the 5086MRI lead than for the 5076 lead (0.93 ± 0.47 V vs 0.74 ± 0.42 V; P < .001). Ventricular sensing amplitudes for the 5086MRI lead were lower at implant (9.0 ± 4.7 mV vs 13.9 ± 6.9 mV; P < .001) and 12 months (9.8 ± 4.8 mV vs 15.4 ± 7.5 mV; P < .001) than for the 5076 lead. There was no statistical difference in lead handling. At 12 months, the estimated right atrial lead-related complication-free survival rate was 99.3% for the 5086MRI lead and 99.6% for the 5076 lead (log-rank P = .65), and the estimated right ventricular lead-related complication-free survival rates were 98.5% and 100% (log-rank P = .03). Acute lead dislodgments occurred in 12 patients with the 5086MRI leads (2.6%) compared with 2 patients with 5076 leads (0.6%) (p = .05) than in 0.6% of the patients with the 5076 lead (P = .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The 5086MRI lead demonstrates clinically acceptable electrical characteristics while providing safe access to MR-guided diagnostics. However, compared with the 5076 lead, the 5086MRI lead exhibits lower ventricular sensing, slightly higher ventricular capture thresholds, and higher acute lead dislodgement rate.
© 2014 Heart Rhythm Society Published by Heart Rhythm Society All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  5076; 5086MRI; CIED; CRT; MRI; Magnetic resonance imaging; RA; RF; RV; cardiac implantable electronic device; cardiac resynchronization therapy; magnetic resonance imaging; radiofrequency; right atrial; right ventricular

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24184788     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.10.056

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  5 in total

Review 1.  MRI for patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices.

Authors:  Grant V Chow; Saman Nazarian
Journal:  Cardiol Clin       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 2.213

2.  Development and validation of a risk score for predicting pericardial effusion in patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation: experience with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker.

Authors:  Jonathan P Piccini; Ryan Cunnane; Jan Steffel; Mikhael F El-Chami; Dwight Reynolds; Paul R Roberts; Kyoko Soejima; Clemens Steinwender; Christophe Garweg; Larry Chinitz; Christopher R Ellis; Kurt Stromberg; Dedra H Fagan; Lluis Mont
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 5.486

3.  Complications of Cardiac Perforation and Lead Dislodgement with an MRI-Conditional Pacing Lead: a Korean Multi-Center Experience.

Authors:  Chang Hee Kwon; Jin Hee Choi; Jun Kim; Uk Jo; Ji Hyun Lee; Woo Seok Lee; Yoo Ri Kim; Soo Yong Lee; Ki Won Whang; Jihyun Yang; Sung Hwan Kim; Yong Seog Oh; Kyoung Min Park; Gi Byoung Nam; Kee Joon Choi; You Ho Kim
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.153

4.  Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Safety during Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  You Mi Hwang; Jun Kim; Ji Hyun Lee; Minsu Kim; Gi-Byoung Nam; Kee-Joon Choi; You-Ho Kim
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 3.243

Review 5.  Are there increased periprocedural complications with the MRI-conditional Medtronic Revo SureScan Pacing System? : A meta-analysis.

Authors:  M Shurrab; A Kaoutskaia; A Baranchuk; C Lau; T Singarajah; I Lashevsky; D Newman; J S Healey; E Crystal
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.380

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.