Literature DB >> 24215291

Cardiac perforation and lead dislodgement after implantation of a MR-conditional pacing lead: a single-center experience.

Darryl A Elmouchi1, Shelly Rosema, Stacie M Vanoosterhout, Mohsin Khan, Alan T Davis, Andre J Gauri, Bohuslav Finta, Alan K Woelfel, Nagib T Chalfoun.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine if the rate of lead-related complications was increased with the Medtronic CapSureFix MRI™ SureScan™ 5086 MRI pacing lead (5086; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) compared to the previous generation of Medtronic CapSureFix Novus™ 5076 pacing lead (5076).
BACKGROUND: The 5086 lead is a newly introduced active-fixation pacemaker lead designed to be used conditionally in a magnetic resonance (MR) scanner. This lead has specific design changes compared to the previous generation of 5076 pacing leads.
METHODS: This study was a retrospective case control study of 65 consecutive patients implanted with two 5086 leads compared to 92 consecutive control patients implanted with two 5076 leads over a 14-month period at a high-volume tertiary care hospital.
RESULTS: Pericarditis, pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, or death within 30 days of implant were seen in eight patients from the 5086 cohort and two from the 5076 cohort (odds ratio 6.3, 95% confidence interval 1.3-30.8, P = 0.02). Lead dislodgement occurred in four of the 5086 patients and in none of the 5076 patients (P < 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: In a high-volume center, the incidence of pericarditis, cardiac perforation, tamponade, death, and lead dislodgement was significantly higher with the MR-conditional Medtronic 5086 lead when compared to the previous generation Medtronic 5076 lead. ©2013, The Authors. Journal compilation ©2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cardiac tamponade; complications; magnetic resonance imaging; pacemakers

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24215291     DOI: 10.1111/pace.12293

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  6 in total

Review 1.  Viewpoint: Cardiac implantable electronic devices and magnetic resonance compatibility: was it really necessary?

Authors:  Richard Sutton; David G Benditt
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 2.  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

3.  Feasibility of MRI in patients with non-Pacemaker/Defibrillator metallic devices and abandoned leads.

Authors:  Prabhakaran P Gopalakrishnan; Loretta Gevenosky; Robert W W Biederman
Journal:  J Biomed Sci Eng       Date:  2021-03-09

4.  Malfunction of an MRI-Conditional Pacemaker Following an MRI.

Authors:  Angela Krebsbach; Thomas A Dewland; Charles A Henrikson
Journal:  HeartRhythm Case Rep       Date:  2016-12-16

5.  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

Review 6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.