Key result
Active-fixation pacing leads demonstrated stable electrical performance comparable to passive-fixation leads over a five-year follow-up, with no difference in pacing thresholds at 5 years (0.72 V vs. 0.72 V).
Why the study?
Does active-fixation pacing lead use improve long-term electrical performance compared to passive-fixation leads in newly implanted patients?
Population
199 newly implanted patients requiring right ventricular pacing leads
Comparison
Active-fixation right ventricular pacing leads vs Passive-fixation right ventricular pacing leads
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
5 years
Authors
Loading...
Active-fixation leads showed comparable 5-year thresholds in this cohort; leaves open whether randomized data would confirm equivalence for lead selection.
RCT (n=199)
Random number generated by computer
No
Does active-fixation pacing lead use improve long-term electrical performance compared to passive-fixation leads in newly implanted patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.72% vs 0.72%
Active-fixation pacing leads demonstrate stable long-term electrical performance that is comparable to passive-fixation leads over a 5-year follow-up.
Liu et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in Bradyarrhythmia requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (n=199). Active-fixation pacing leads vs. Passive-fixation pacing leads was evaluated on Pacing threshold at 5 years (V). Active-fixation pacing leads demonstrated stable electrical performance comparable to passive-fixation leads over a five-year follow-up, with no difference in pacing thresholds at 5 years (0.72 V vs. 0.72 V).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: