Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2015
Comparative Chronic Valve and Venous Effects of Lumenless versus Stylet-Delivered Pacing Leads in Patients with and Without Congenital Heart.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bharmanee Apinya, Zelin Kathleen, Sanil Yamuna, Gupta Pooja, Karpawich Peter P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Standard, 5-7-Fr diameter pacing leads (PLs) can adversely affect atrioventricular valve (AVV) and venous (superior vena cava [SVC], innominate [INN]) integrities. Although chronic pacing/sensing performances have been reported on the steroid-eluting, lumenless, 4.1-Fr PL (Model 3830, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA), comparative valve and venous effects are largely unknown.
METHODS: Patients (n = 134) were divided into two PL groups: Group 1 (n = 65, Model 3830) and Group 2 (n = 69, various 5-7 Fr models) and followed up to 9 years postimplant. Patient demographics, clinical findings, valve function, and venous dimensions were reviewed. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.
RESULTS: Patient implant age (mean 16.4 years vs 17.3 years), presence of congenital heart defect (CHD), and preexisting valve issues were comparable between groups. New or worsening valve insufficiency occurred in 12% of Group 1 patients (mean follow-up 4.3 ± 2.8 years) and 27% of Group 2 patients (mean follow-up 6.2 ± 3.5 years; P < 0.05). Significant SVC or INN narrowing was found in 11 % of Group 1 and 24% of Group 2 patients (P = 0.0004). All Group 1 patients <12 years of age showed normal while 50% of those from Group 2 exhibited stunted SVC or INN growth (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The lumenless, 4.1-Fr diameter PL offers improved clinical benefits, better AVV integrity, and venous development compared with larger 5-7-Fr diameter PL and should be considered especially in younger patients with/without CHD.
METHODS: Patients (n = 134) were divided into two PL groups: Group 1 (n = 65, Model 3830) and Group 2 (n = 69, various 5-7 Fr models) and followed up to 9 years postimplant. Patient demographics, clinical findings, valve function, and venous dimensions were reviewed. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.
RESULTS: Patient implant age (mean 16.4 years vs 17.3 years), presence of congenital heart defect (CHD), and preexisting valve issues were comparable between groups. New or worsening valve insufficiency occurred in 12% of Group 1 patients (mean follow-up 4.3 ± 2.8 years) and 27% of Group 2 patients (mean follow-up 6.2 ± 3.5 years; P < 0.05). Significant SVC or INN narrowing was found in 11 % of Group 1 and 24% of Group 2 patients (P = 0.0004). All Group 1 patients <12 years of age showed normal while 50% of those from Group 2 exhibited stunted SVC or INN growth (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The lumenless, 4.1-Fr diameter PL offers improved clinical benefits, better AVV integrity, and venous development compared with larger 5-7-Fr diameter PL and should be considered especially in younger patients with/without CHD.