BACKGROUND: Pacing parameters may influence pacing lead life and pacemaker life. This study sought to determine whether different right atrial active-fixation lead implantation parameters are associated with chronic pacing performance. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted on all consecutive patients implanted with an active-fixation atrial lead at our institution from July 2014 to October 2016. Atrial leads with a P-wave sensing of ≥2.0 mV, a pacing threshold of ≤1.0 V, and a lead impedance of 300-1,000 ohms were assigned as the optimized group, while atrial leads that did not meet these specifications were assigned as the conventional group. A total of 98 patients who received active-fixation atrial leads (55 patients were male, mean age was 63±12 years old) were studied, and the lead performance of 67 of these patients were optimized in 3 months. RESULTS: In the multivariate analysis, current of injury [COI; COI10min, odds ratio (OR): 0.296, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.093-0.939, P=0.039] and P-wave sensing (P10min, OR: 0.449, 95% CI: 0.265-0.762, P=0.003) were recorded at 10 minutes after lead fixation, and were considered predictors of lead optimized performance. The cut-off value of COI10min and P10min was 1.04 mV (sensitivity: 0.58 and specificity: 0.77) and 3.3 mV (sensitivity: 0.67 and specificity: 0.74), respectively, for predicting lead optimized performance after 3 months. COI10min ≥1.04 mV and P10min ≥3.3 mV were combined and considered as the predictable criteria, and the area under the ROC curve was 0.806 (sensitivity =0.70 and specificity =0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Optimized atrial lead performance at 3 months was predictable from COI10min ≥1.04 mV and P10min ≥3.3 mV.
BACKGROUND: Pacing parameters may influence pacing lead life and pacemaker life. This study sought to determine whether different right atrial active-fixation lead implantation parameters are associated with chronic pacing performance. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted on all consecutive patients implanted with an active-fixation atrial lead at our institution from July 2014 to October 2016. Atrial leads with a P-wave sensing of ≥2.0 mV, a pacing threshold of ≤1.0 V, and a lead impedance of 300-1,000 ohms were assigned as the optimized group, while atrial leads that did not meet these specifications were assigned as the conventional group. A total of 98 patients who received active-fixation atrial leads (55 patients were male, mean age was 63±12 years old) were studied, and the lead performance of 67 of these patients were optimized in 3 months. RESULTS: In the multivariate analysis, current of injury [COI; COI10min, odds ratio (OR): 0.296, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.093-0.939, P=0.039] and P-wave sensing (P10min, OR: 0.449, 95% CI: 0.265-0.762, P=0.003) were recorded at 10 minutes after lead fixation, and were considered predictors of lead optimized performance. The cut-off value of COI10min and P10min was 1.04 mV (sensitivity: 0.58 and specificity: 0.77) and 3.3 mV (sensitivity: 0.67 and specificity: 0.74), respectively, for predicting lead optimized performance after 3 months. COI10min ≥1.04 mV and P10min ≥3.3 mV were combined and considered as the predictable criteria, and the area under the ROC curve was 0.806 (sensitivity =0.70 and specificity =0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Optimized atrial lead performance at 3 months was predictable from COI10min ≥1.04 mV and P10min ≥3.3 mV.
Entities:
Keywords:
Pacemaker; active-fixation lead; atrium; current of injury (COI); pacing performance
Authors: M Scherer; K Ezziddin; A Klesius; M Skupin; S Helms; A Moritz; H G Olbrich Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Charles R Kerr; Stuart J Connolly; Hoshiar Abdollah; Robin S Roberts; Michael Gent; Salim Yusuf; Anne M Gillis; Anthony S L Tang; Mario Talajic; George J Klein; David M Newman Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-01-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Raphael Rosso; Caroline Medi; Andrew W Teh; Thuy To Hung; Alexander Feldman; Geoffrey Lee; Harry G Mond Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: David Luria; David Bar-Lev; Osnat Gurevitz; Hava Granit; Zeev Rotstein; Michael Eldar; Michael Glikson Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Damian P Redfearn; Lorne J Gula; Andrew D Krahn; Allan C Skanes; George J Klein; Raymond Yee Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Michael O Sweeney; Alan J Bank; Emmanuel Nsah; Maria Koullick; Qian Cathy Zeng; Douglas Hettrick; Todd Sheldon; Gervasio A Lamas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-09-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael O Sweeney; Anne S Hellkamp; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Arnold J Greenspon; Roger A Freedman; Kerry L Lee; Gervasio A Lamas Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-06-02 Impact factor: 29.690