A survival analysis of bipolar steroid‐eluting and unipolar nonsteroid‐eluting epicardial leads

Introduction Epicardial pacemakers are known as an alternative for endocardial pacemakers in some cases such as heart block, and complex congenital heart diseases. Considering recent advances and improvement of epicardial lead subtypes, it is essential to investigate the long‐term function of them....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology 2023-01, Vol.34 (1), p.209-218
Hauptverfasser: Fazelifar, Amir Farjam, Taghavyan, Nina Jalily, Moeeni, Mahdi, Baharestani, Bahador, Shahandashti, Farshad Jalili, Haghjoo, Majid, Hoseini, Saeed, Kamali, Farzad, Madadi, Shabnam, Yoonesi, Ali Asghar, Koolaji, Sogol
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction Epicardial pacemakers are known as an alternative for endocardial pacemakers in some cases such as heart block, and complex congenital heart diseases. Considering recent advances and improvement of epicardial lead subtypes, it is essential to investigate the long‐term function of them. In this study, we aimed to assess the sensing and pacing characteristics, and survival of bipolar steroid‐eluting and unipolar nonsteroid‐eluting epicardial pacemakers. Methods We conducted an entirely concentrated search on the documents of all patients who had undergone epicardial lead implantation in the Shaheed Rajaie Cardiovascular, Medical & Research Center during 2015–2018. Implant, and follow‐up data were extracted. Kaplan–Meier analysis and Weibull regression hazards model were applied for the survival analysis. Results Eighty‐nine leads were implanted for 77 patients. Of the total leads, 52.81%, 53.93%, and 47.19% were implanted in children (under 18‐year‐old), females, and patients with congenital heart diseases, respectively. Bipolar steroid‐eluting leads comprised 33.71% of 89 leads. The pacing threshold of unipolar nonsteroid‐eluting leads that were implanted on the left ventricle and right atrium increased significantly during the follow‐up to greater records than bipolar steroid‐eluting leads. Survival analysis also revealed that bipolar steroid‐eluting leads are significantly better in 48‐month survival (Weibull hazard ratio [HR]: 0.13 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.02–0.99), p = .049). Age, ventricular location of the lead, and acute pacing characteristics were not associated with survival. Conclusions Bipolar steroid‐eluting epicardial leads have an acceptable survival compared with unipolar nonsteroid‐eluting, without a significant difference regarding patients age. Therefore, they could be an excellent alternative for endocardial ones. The survival rate of unipolar nonsteroid‐eluting and bipolar steroid‐eluting epicardial leads during the 40‐month follow‐up.
ISSN:1045-3873
1540-8167
DOI:10.1111/jce.15709