Key result
Endocardial lead systems showed similar long-term stability to epicardial systems, with lead-related complications occurring in 10.1% versus 16.4% of patients, respectively (P > 0.05).
Why the study?
Do endocardial lead systems have a different incidence of lead-related complications compared to epicardial lead systems in patients with ICDs?
Cohort (n=140)
Do endocardial lead systems have a different incidence of lead-related complications compared to epicardial lead systems in patients with ICDs?
Endocardial lead systems offer similar long-term stability compared to epicardial lead systems, with chest X-ray being the most useful tool to detect structural lead defects.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Endocardial ICD leads show comparable complications to epicardial; supports observational equivalence but leaves randomized confirmation open.
UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term stability of epicardial and endocardial lead systems for third-generation cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and to assess the usefulness of diagnostic tools. One hundred forty patients with 61 epicardial (43.6%) and 79 nonthoracotomy systems (56.4%) were followed for 25 +/- 19 months. A total of 18 (12.9%) lead related complications were documented. Complications of epicardial systems were detected in 10 patients (16.4%) during a follow-up time of 36 +/- 8 months: crinkling of patch electrodes in 6 patients (9.8%), insulation breakage of sensing electrodes in 2 patients (3.3%), and adapter defect in 2 patients (3.3%). Eight of the patients (10.1%) with transvenous-subcutaneous systems had lead related complications during a 13 +/- 6 months follow-up: fracture of the subcutaneous patch lead in 2 patients (2.5%), dislodgement of the right ventricular lead in 2 patients (2.5%), dislodgement of the superior vena cava lead in 2 patients (2.5%), insulation breakage of sensing electrodes in 1 patient (1.3%), and connector defect in 1 patient (1.3%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of lead related complications between epicardial and endocardial systems (P > 0.05). Fractures, dislodgements, and crinklings were documented within the first 8 +/- 5 months by regular chest X ray. Defects of insulation, adapter, or connector were detected 22 +/- 10 months after implantation and were associated with delivery of multiple inappropriate ICD therapies. An operative lead revision was indicated for 4 epicardial (6.6%) and 6 endocardial (7.6%) lead systems. CONCLUSIONS: Endocardial lead systems offer a similar long-term stability as compared to epicardial lead systems. Chest X ray is the most useful tool to detect lead fracture, dislodgment, and patch crinkling. Marker recordings or real-time electrograms have not been helpful in this series to identify patients with suspected lead defects prior to the experience of inappropriate ICD discharges.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Korte et al. (1995) conducted a cohort in Patients with third-generation cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) (n=140). Endocardial lead systems vs. Epicardial lead systems was evaluated on Incidence of lead related complications (p=> 0.05). Endocardial lead systems showed similar long-term stability to epicardial systems, with lead-related complications occurring in 10.1% versus 16.4% of patients, respectively (P > 0.05).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: