Comparison of Vitreous Carbon and Elgiloy Transvenous Ventricular Pacing Leads

In a randomized prospective study of 150 patients. we compared two porous‐tipped, finned leads, one with a vitreous carbon lip (surface area = 12 mm2) and the other with an Elgiloy tip (surface area = 8 mm2). We assessed the acute and chronic stimulation thresholds and the ease of implantation of the two leads. The acute current thresholds for the vitreous carbon and Elgiloy‐tipped leads were 1.7 ± 0.5 (±SD) mA vs. 1.1 ± 0.4 mA (0.25 ms pulse width), 1.3 ± 0.5 mA vs. 0.9 ± 0.3 mA [0.5 ms], and 1.0 ± 0.3 mA vs. 0.8 ± 0.3 mA (0.75 ms), respectively (P < 0.0005). Impedance at implantation was 473 ± 121 ohms and 716 ± 285 ohms (P < 0.0005) for the carbon‐tipped and Elgiloy‐tipped leads, respectively. The R‐wave amplitudes were 10.2 ± 5.1 volts and 6.8 ± 3.0 volts, respectively (P < 0.0005). Both leads were easy to implant and showed low stable chronic thresholds from 3 weeks after implantation, at which time the stimulation threshold was 1.9 ± 1.0 volts vs. 1.5 ± 0.6 volts with the implonted voltage‐variable generators and 1.8 ± 0.8 mA vs. 1.6 ± 0.6 mA with the implanted current‐variable generators. Reoper‐ationfor displacement was required for two of the 87 (2.3%) carbon‐tipped and 2 of the 67 (3.2%) Elgiloy‐tipped leads. There was no exit block nor any other lead‐related complication. We conclude that both leads have similar and satisfactory performance.