Cargando…

Surgical Approaches to Epicardial Pacemaker Placement: Does Pocket Location Affect Lead Survival?

Permanent cardiac pacing in pediatric patients presents challenges related to small patient size, complex anatomy, electrophysiologic abnormalities, and limited access to cardiac chambers. Epicardial pacing currently remains the conventional technique for infants and patients with complex congenital...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lichtenstein, Brian J., Bichell, David P., Connolly, Dana M., Lamberti, John J., Shepard, Suzanne M., Seslar, Stephen P.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20690018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00246-010-9754-1
_version_ 1782187426908733440
author Lichtenstein, Brian J.
Bichell, David P.
Connolly, Dana M.
Lamberti, John J.
Shepard, Suzanne M.
Seslar, Stephen P.
author_facet Lichtenstein, Brian J.
Bichell, David P.
Connolly, Dana M.
Lamberti, John J.
Shepard, Suzanne M.
Seslar, Stephen P.
author_sort Lichtenstein, Brian J.
collection PubMed
description Permanent cardiac pacing in pediatric patients presents challenges related to small patient size, complex anatomy, electrophysiologic abnormalities, and limited access to cardiac chambers. Epicardial pacing currently remains the conventional technique for infants and patients with complex congenital heart disease. Pacemaker lead failure is the major source of failure for such epicardial systems. The authors hypothesized that a retrocostal surgical approach would reduce the rate of lead failure due to fracture compared with the more traditional subrectus and subxiphoid approaches. To evaluate this hypothesis, a retrospective chart review analyzed patients with epicardial pacemaker systems implanted or followed at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego between January 1980 and May 2007. The study cohort consisted of 219 patients and a total of 620 leads with epicardial pacemakers. Among these patients, 84% had structural congenital heart disease, and 45% were younger than 3 years at time of the first implantation. The estimated lead survival was 93% at 2 years and 83% at 5 years. The majority of leads failed due to pacing problems (54%), followed by lead fracture (31%) and sensing problems (14%). When lead failure was adjusted for length of follow-up period, no significant differences in the rates of failure by pocket location were found.
format Text
id pubmed-2948166
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29481662010-10-20 Surgical Approaches to Epicardial Pacemaker Placement: Does Pocket Location Affect Lead Survival? Lichtenstein, Brian J. Bichell, David P. Connolly, Dana M. Lamberti, John J. Shepard, Suzanne M. Seslar, Stephen P. Pediatr Cardiol Original Article Permanent cardiac pacing in pediatric patients presents challenges related to small patient size, complex anatomy, electrophysiologic abnormalities, and limited access to cardiac chambers. Epicardial pacing currently remains the conventional technique for infants and patients with complex congenital heart disease. Pacemaker lead failure is the major source of failure for such epicardial systems. The authors hypothesized that a retrocostal surgical approach would reduce the rate of lead failure due to fracture compared with the more traditional subrectus and subxiphoid approaches. To evaluate this hypothesis, a retrospective chart review analyzed patients with epicardial pacemaker systems implanted or followed at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego between January 1980 and May 2007. The study cohort consisted of 219 patients and a total of 620 leads with epicardial pacemakers. Among these patients, 84% had structural congenital heart disease, and 45% were younger than 3 years at time of the first implantation. The estimated lead survival was 93% at 2 years and 83% at 5 years. The majority of leads failed due to pacing problems (54%), followed by lead fracture (31%) and sensing problems (14%). When lead failure was adjusted for length of follow-up period, no significant differences in the rates of failure by pocket location were found. Springer-Verlag 2010-08-06 2010 /pmc/articles/PMC2948166/ /pubmed/20690018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00246-010-9754-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2010 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Lichtenstein, Brian J.
Bichell, David P.
Connolly, Dana M.
Lamberti, John J.
Shepard, Suzanne M.
Seslar, Stephen P.
Surgical Approaches to Epicardial Pacemaker Placement: Does Pocket Location Affect Lead Survival?
title Surgical Approaches to Epicardial Pacemaker Placement: Does Pocket Location Affect Lead Survival?
title_full Surgical Approaches to Epicardial Pacemaker Placement: Does Pocket Location Affect Lead Survival?
title_fullStr Surgical Approaches to Epicardial Pacemaker Placement: Does Pocket Location Affect Lead Survival?
title_full_unstemmed Surgical Approaches to Epicardial Pacemaker Placement: Does Pocket Location Affect Lead Survival?
title_short Surgical Approaches to Epicardial Pacemaker Placement: Does Pocket Location Affect Lead Survival?
title_sort surgical approaches to epicardial pacemaker placement: does pocket location affect lead survival?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20690018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00246-010-9754-1
work_keys_str_mv AT lichtensteinbrianj surgicalapproachestoepicardialpacemakerplacementdoespocketlocationaffectleadsurvival
AT bichelldavidp surgicalapproachestoepicardialpacemakerplacementdoespocketlocationaffectleadsurvival
AT connollydanam surgicalapproachestoepicardialpacemakerplacementdoespocketlocationaffectleadsurvival
AT lambertijohnj surgicalapproachestoepicardialpacemakerplacementdoespocketlocationaffectleadsurvival
AT shepardsuzannem surgicalapproachestoepicardialpacemakerplacementdoespocketlocationaffectleadsurvival
AT seslarstephenp surgicalapproachestoepicardialpacemakerplacementdoespocketlocationaffectleadsurvival