Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of Modern Steroid-Eluting Epicardial and Thin Transvenous Pacemaker Leads in Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease Patients

  • Published:
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: Optimal pacemaker lead choice in pediatric patients eligible for either epicardial or transvenous leads remains unclear. We compared performances of modern thin transvenous (TTV) and steroid-eluting epicardial (SEE) leads in patients followed at one pediatric center.

Methods: Retrospective review of patients with qualifying leads implanted from August 1997 to March 2004. Threshold energy (TE) at implant and follow-up, sensing thresholds, lead complications, and repeat pacing-related procedures were analyzed. Lead performances were compared using t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Cox regression. Survival curves were plotted using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

Results: A total of 370 implant procedures, 521 leads, and 1549 visits were evaluated. In all, 256 leads were SEE (49%, 184 implants) and 265 were TTV (51%, 186 implants). Median follow-up was 29 months (range 1–80 months). Patients with SEE systems were younger at implant (6 vs. 17 yrs, p < 0.001), and more had congenital heart defects (82% vs. 57%, p < 0.001). At follow-up, ventricular TEs were higher for SEE leads at implant (p < 0.001), 1 month (p < 0.001), and up to 4 years (p = 0.019). When compared across all follow-up durations combined, TTV TEs were significantly lower than SEE TEs for both atrial and ventricular leads (p < 0.001). A total of 70 repeat procedures were performed in 60 patients during the study period, which comprised 18% of SEE and 14% of TTV system patients (p = NS). In all, 18 TTV and 19 SEE leads failed (p = NS). Estimated freedom from lead failure at 1, 3, and 5 years was 97%, 88%, 85% for TTV leads and 96%, 92%, and 58% for SEE leads (log rank P = NS).

Conclusions: Both SEE and TTV leads showed good mid-term performance and survival in our cohort. Higher TEs seen for SEE leads, especially ventricular and unipolar leads, may result in higher current drain and thus more generator replacements than TTV systems. Lead failure rates were comparable across lead types. TTV leads offer a promising alternative to SEE systems in terms of performance for young patients without intracardiac shunting who do not require open-chest surgery for another indication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fortescue EB, Berul CI, Cecchin F, Walsh EP, Triedman JK, Alexander ME. Patient, procedural, and hardware factors associated with pacemaker lead failures in pediatrics and congenital heart disease. Heart Rhythm 2004;1:150–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rao V, Williams WG, Hamilton RH, Williams MG, Goldman BS, Gow RM. Trends in pediatric cardiac pacing. Can J Cardiol 1995;11:993–999.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wampler DG, Shannon C, Burns GV, Gillette PC. Cardiac pacing in children and young adults. Am J Dis Child 1983;137:1098–1100.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sliz NB Jr, Johns JA. Cardiac pacing in infants and children. Cardiol Rev 2000;8:223–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bevilacqua L, Hordof A. Cardiac pacing in children. Curr Opin Cardiol 1998;13:48–55.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gillette PC, Shannon C, Blair H. Transvenous pacing in paediatric patients. Am Heart J 1983;105:843–847.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kammeraad JAE, Rosenthal E, Bostock J, Rogers J, Sreeram N. Endocardial pacemaker implantation in infants <10 kilograms. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2004;27:1466–1474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mond HG, Grenz D. Implantable transvenous pacing leads: The shape of things to come. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2004;27:887–893.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Alexander ME. Transvenous pacing in infants: A faith based initiative? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2004;27:1463–1465.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Warner KG, Halpin DP, Berul CI, Payne DD. Placement of a permanent epicardial pacemaker in children using a subcostal approach. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;68:173–175.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sachweh JS, Vazquez-Jiminez JF, Schondube FA, Daebritz SH, Dorge H, Muhler EG, Messmer BJ. Twenty years experience with pediatric pacing: Epicardial and transvenous stimulation. Eur J Cardio-thoracic Surg 2000;17:455–461.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Udink ten Cate F, Breur J, Boramanand N, Crosson J, Friedman A, Brenner J, Meijboom E, Sreeram N. Endocardial and epicardial steroid lead pacing in the neonatal and paediatric age group. Heart 2002;88:392–396.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nordlander R, Pehrsson SK, Book K, Zetterqvist P, Fahlen-Vepsa IL. Clinical experience of pacemaker treatment in children. Scand J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1992;26:69–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Beaufort-Krol GC, Mulder H, Nagelkerke D, Waterbolk TW, Bink-Boelkens MTE. Comparison of longevity, pacing, and sensing characteristics of steroid-eluting epicardial versus conventional endocardial pacing leads in children. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;117:523–528.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Henglein D, Gillette PC, Shannon C, Burns G. Long-term follow-up of pulse width threshold of transvenous and myo-epicardial leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1984;7:203–214.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Williams WG, Hesslein PS, Kormos R. Exit block in children with pacemakers. Clin Prog Electrophysiol Pacing 1986;4:478–489.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Crossley GH. Cardiac pacing leads. Cardiol Clin 2000; 18:95–112.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Horenstein MS, Hakimi M, Walters III H, Karpawich PP. Chronic performance of steroid-eluting epicardial leads in a growing pediatric population: A 10-year comparison. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2003;26:1467–1471.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Crossley GH, Brinker JA, Reynolds D, Spencer W, Johnson WB, Hurd H, Tonder L, Zmijewski M, Model 4068 investigators. Steroid elution improves the stimulation threshold in an active-fixation atrial permanent pacing lead. A randomized, controlled study. Circulation 1995;92:2935–2939.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen MI, Bush DM, Vetter VL, Tanel RE, Wieand TS, Gaynor W, Rhodes LA. Permanent epicardial pacing in pediatric patients: Seventeen years of experience and 1200 outpatient visits. Circulation 2001;103:2585–2590.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lau YR, Gillette PC, Buckles DS, Zeigler VL. Actuarial survival of transvenous pacing leads in a pediatric population. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1993;16:1363–1367.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Till JA, Jones S, Rowland E, Shinebourne EA, Ward DE. Endocardial pacing in infants and children 15 kg or less in weight: Medium-term follow-up. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1990;13:1385–1392.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cooper JM, Stephenson EA, Berul CI, Walsh EP, Epstein LM. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead complications and laser extraction in children and young adults with congenital heart disease. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2003;14:344–349.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Epstein MR, Walsh EP, Saul JP, Triedman JK, Mayer JE Jr, Gamble WJ. Long-term performance of bipolar epicardial atrial pacing using an active fixation bipolar endocardial lead. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1998;21:1098–1104.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. The SAS institute, Cary, NC.

  26. Thomson JD, Blackburn ME, Van Doorn C, Nicholls A, Watterson KG. Pacing activity, patient and lead survival over 20 years of permanent epicardial pacing in children. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77:1366–1370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Figa FH, McCrindle BW, Bigras JL, Hamilton RM, Gow RM. Risk factors for venous obstruction in children with transvenous pacing leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1997;20:1902–1909.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Old WD, Paulsen W, Lewis S, et al. Pacemaker lead induced tricuspid stenosis: Diagnosed by Doppler echocardiography. Am Heart J 1990;117:1105–1107.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Berul CI, Barrett KS, Alexander ME, Bevilacqua LM, Forbess J, Triedman JK, Walsh EP. Small-diameter transvenous permanent pacemaker leads in children. PACE2001;24:329 [Abstract]. Presented at the 22nd Annual Scientific Session of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology, Boston, 2001.

  30. Wilkoff BL, Byrd CL, Love CJ, Hayes DL, Sellers TD, Schaerf R, Parsonnet V, Epstein LM, Sorrentino RA, Reiser C. Pacemaker lead extraction with the laser sheath: Results of the pacing lead extraction with the excimer sheath (PLEXES) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33:1671–1676.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Byrd CL, Wilkoff BL, Love CJ, Sellers TD, Reiser C. Clinical study of the laser sheath for lead extraction: The total experience in the United States. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2002;25:804–808.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Berul CI, Barrett KS. Unique Aspects of Pacemaker Implantation in Pediatric Patients. In Walsh EP, Saul JP, Triedman JK, eds. Cardiac Arrhythmias in Children and Young Adults with Congenital Heart Disease. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins,© 2001;301–317.

  33. Klug D, Vaksmann G, Jarwe M, Wallet F, Francart C, Kacet S, Rey C. Pacemaker lead infection in young patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2003;26:1489–1493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Friedman RA, Van Zandt H, Collins E, LeGras M, Perry J. Lead extraction in young patients with and without congenital heart disease using the suclavian approach. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1996;19:778–783.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark E. Alexander.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fortescue, E.B., Berul, C.I., Cecchin, F. et al. Comparison of Modern Steroid-Eluting Epicardial and Thin Transvenous Pacemaker Leads in Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease Patients. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 14, 27–36 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-005-3797-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-005-3797-x

Key Words

Navigation