Advertisement

Cardiac Pacing pp 317-321 | Cite as

Comparison of Lead Complications with Polyurethane Tined, Silicone Rubber Tined, and Wedge Tip Ventricular Pacemaker Leads

  • P. J. Kertes
  • H. G. Mond
  • J. K. Vohra
  • J. G. Sloman
  • C.-W. Kong
  • D. Hunt
Conference paper

Summary

A prospective study of lead-related complications was undertaken over a five year period to compare unipolar tined endocardial pacemaker leads with silicone rubber insulation (SR), to those with polyurethane insulation (PU). Overall complications were similar in both groups - 3.6% for the 364 SR leads and 4.2% for the 238 PU leads.

The total series of 602 tined leads (SR + PU) was then compared to a retrospective review of 220 wedge tip silicone rubber ventricular leads. A marked reduction was demonstrated in dislodgements (0.3% vs 7.7%, P < 0.001) reoperations (2.0% vs 15.0%, P < 0.001) and total complications (3.8% vs 15.5%, P < 0.001) with tined leads. We conclude that tined ventricular leads are far superior to wedge tip leads with respect to lead complications. There were no significant differences between the two types of tined leads used in this study.

Keywords

Silicone Rubber Cardiac Pace Sick Sinus Syndrome Total Complication Ventricular Lead 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Parsonnet V, Bilitch M, Furman S, Fisher JD, Escher DJW, Myers G, Cassady E: Early malfunction of transvenous pacemaker electrodes. A three year study. Circulation 1979; 60: 590–596.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Robicsek F, Tarjan P, Harbold NB, Masters TN, Robicsek SA: Self-anchoring endocardial pacemaker leads: Current spectrum of types, advances in design and clinical results. Am Heart J 1981; 102: 775–782.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stimarec Bulletin No.6, June 30th 1982, Page 1.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McArthur, WA: Long-term implant effects of three polyurethane leads in humans. Pacesetter Systems Inc., 1982.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parins DJ, Black KM, McCoy KD and Horvath NJ: In vivo degradation ofa polyurethane. Cardiac Pacemakers Inc., 1981.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gordon S, Timmins GC, Ramos RG, Gangadharan V and Hauser J: Improved transvenous pacemaker electrode stability. In: Meere, C. (Ed). Cardiac Pacing. Proceedings of the Sixth World Symposium on Cardiac Pacing. Montreal: Pace-symp, 1979: Chapter 31.3.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Painter MW, Harrington OB, Crosby VG, Wolf RY: Implantation of an endocardial lead to prevent early dislodgement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1979; 77: 249–251.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holmes DR, Gersh BJ, Maloney JD, Merideth J: Follow-up experience with permanent endocardial tined pacemaker electrodes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1980; 79: 565–569.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mond HG, Sloman JG: The small tined pacemaker lead - absence of displacement. Pace 1980; 3: 171–177.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Snow N: Elimination of lead dislodgement by the use of tined transvenous electrodes. Pace 1982; 5: 571–574.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guerrant K: Clinical Engineering Notice, Intermedics Inc, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Termin P: Biostability of urethane cardiac pacing leads. Medtronic Inc. Pacing concept paper No.4, April, 12, 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. Dietrich Steinkopff Verlag, GmbH & Co. KG, Darmstadt 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. Kertes
    • 1
  • H. G. Mond
  • J. K. Vohra
  • J. G. Sloman
  • C.-W. Kong
  • D. Hunt
  1. 1.Department of CardiologyThe Royal Melbourne HospitalMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations