PURPOSE: Optimal atrial pacemaker lead position and fixation mechanism have not been determined with regard to effect on complications. We aimed to determine the association between atrial lead-related complications and varying atrial lead tip positions and lead fixation mechanisms. METHODS: All patients who underwent dual-chamber pacemaker implant between 2004 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed for atrial lead tip position and fixation type. Lead-related complications were assessed by electronic medical record review. Complication rates were compared at 1 year by chi-square analysis and at 5 years using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 3451 patients (mean age 73.9, 53.4 % male) underwent dual-chamber pacemaker placement. Active fixation leads were associated with a higher incidence of pericardial effusion (81 (2.9 %) vs. 6 (1.0 %), p = 0.005) and pericardiocentesis (46 (1.6 %) vs. 2 (0.3 %), p = 0.01) at 1 year compared to passive fixation leads. There was no difference in overall complication rates by fixation type (161 (5.7 %) vs. 29 (4.6 %), p = 0.26). Low atrial septal lead tip position was associated with a higher rate of lead dislodgement (10 (15.2 %)) compared to appendage (46 (1.6 %)), free wall (10 (2.1 %)), or high atrial septal (2 (4.7 %)) positions (p < 0.001). This difference was also reflected in a significantly increased need for lead revision and overall complications. A multivariate analysis which included potential confounders confirmed the association of active fixation leads with an increased rate of perforation-related complications (p = 0.03) and septal lead location with increased rates of dislodgement (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Active compared to passive lead fixation increases the risk for pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis. There is a clear association between low atrial septal lead position and lead dislodgement requiring lead revision.
PURPOSE: Optimal atrial pacemaker lead position and fixation mechanism have not been determined with regard to effect on complications. We aimed to determine the association between atrial lead-related complications and varying atrial lead tip positions and lead fixation mechanisms. METHODS: All patients who underwent dual-chamber pacemaker implant between 2004 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed for atrial lead tip position and fixation type. Lead-related complications were assessed by electronic medical record review. Complication rates were compared at 1 year by chi-square analysis and at 5 years using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 3451 patients (mean age 73.9, 53.4 % male) underwent dual-chamber pacemaker placement. Active fixation leads were associated with a higher incidence of pericardial effusion (81 (2.9 %) vs. 6 (1.0 %), p = 0.005) and pericardiocentesis (46 (1.6 %) vs. 2 (0.3 %), p = 0.01) at 1 year compared to passive fixation leads. There was no difference in overall complication rates by fixation type (161 (5.7 %) vs. 29 (4.6 %), p = 0.26). Low atrial septal lead tip position was associated with a higher rate of lead dislodgement (10 (15.2 %)) compared to appendage (46 (1.6 %)), free wall (10 (2.1 %)), or high atrial septal (2 (4.7 %)) positions (p < 0.001). This difference was also reflected in a significantly increased need for lead revision and overall complications. A multivariate analysis which included potential confounders confirmed the association of active fixation leads with an increased rate of perforation-related complications (p = 0.03) and septal lead location with increased rates of dislodgement (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Active compared to passive lead fixation increases the risk for pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis. There is a clear association between low atrial septal lead position and lead dislodgement requiring lead revision.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complications; Fixation type; Lead position; Pacemaker lead
Authors: Luigi Padeletti; Helmut Pürerfellner; Stuart W Adler; Theodore J Waller; Mark Harvey; Lewis Horvitz; Reece Holbrook; Kitty Kempen; Andrew Mugglin; Douglas A Hettrick Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2003-11
Authors: David M Luria; Micha S Feinberg; Osnat T Gurevitz; David S Bar-Lev; Chava Granit; Nechemia Tanami; Michael Eldar; Michael Glikson Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 1.976