| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Circulation. 1995;92:2935-2939.)
© 1995 American Heart Association, Inc.
Articles |
From the Cardiology Section, Department of Medicine, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC (G.H.C.); Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md (J.A.B.); The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City (D.R.); Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex (W.S.); Mercy Hospital, Des Moines, Iowa (W.B.J.); Washington University, St Louis, Mo (H.H.); and Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn (L.T., M.Z.).
Background Prior work suggests that the addition of a steroid-eluting reservoir to a passive-fixation permanent pacemaker lead improves the stimulation threshold; however, no large randomized study has addressed this issue. Over the last several years, there has been an increase in enthusiasm for the use of active-fixation permanent pacemaker leads for various reasons in spite of the generally accepted notion that active-fixation leads have higher stimulation thresholds.
Methods and Results This multicenter, randomized, controlled study examined the difference in performance between a standard active-fixation atrial lead (Medtronic model 4058) and a steroid-eluting lead (Medtronic model 4068). Stimulation thresholds were obtained in a four-point strength-duration fashion. Evaluations of sensing and impedance were performed as well. These evaluations were performed at implantation, at weeks 1 through 4, and at weeks 6, 12, 24, and 52. Stimulation thresholds were significantly better in the steroid lead than in the nonsteroid lead at each measurement point from 1 week to 12 months. The mean 1.6-V stimulation threshold at 12 months was 0.19±0.2 ms in the steroid lead and 0.41±0.30 ms in the control lead. No acute peaking was observed with the steroid lead, whereas significant peaking was observed with the control lead. There was no difference in long-term sensing or impedance.
Conclusions Inclusion of a steroid-eluting reservoir in an active-fixation permanent pacing lead improved stimulation thresholds in both the subacute and chronic periods and therefore should extend pulse-generator longevity.
Key Words: pacemakers electrical stimulation trials
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. Odim, B. Suckow, B. Saedi, H. Laks, and K. Shannon Equivalent Performance of Epicardial Versus Endocardial Permanent Pacing in Children: A Single Institution and Manufacturer Experience Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2008; 85(4): 1412 - 1416. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Schuchert, M. A. Aydin, C. Israel, G. Gaby, and V. Paul Atrial pacing and sensing characteristics in heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy Europace, January 1, 2005; 7(2): 165 - 169. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Z.I. Harris and M.D. Gammage Alternative right ventricular pacing sites -- where are we going? Europace, January 1, 2000; 2(2): 93 - 98. [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. C. M. Beaufort-Krol, H. Mulder, D. Nagelkerke, T. W. Waterbolk, and M. Th. E. Bink-Boelkens COMPARISON OF LONGEVITY, PACING, AND SENSING CHARACTERISTICS OF STEROID-ELUTING EPICARDIAL VERSUS CONVENTIONAL ENDOCARDIAL PACING LEADS IN CHILDREN J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., March 1, 1999; 117(3): 523 - 528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
|
Circulation Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 1995 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |