Key result
Polyurethane insulated leads had a lower cumulative survival rate from insulation failure than silicone rubber leads (88.7% vs 100%, P=0.02), especially when the subclavian vein approach was used.
Why the study?
Does polyurethane insulation and subclavian vein approach increase lead insulation failure in pacemaker leads?
Population
290 consecutive pacemaker/defibrillator leads with ≥ 1 year follow-up
Comparison
Polyurethane insulation and/or subclavian vein… vs Silicone rubber insulation and/or cephalic vein…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
mean 57 +/- 30 months
Authors
Loading...
Insulation material and venous route may influence lead failure rates; Level 5 data leaves open optimal selection for durability.
Cohort (n=290)
Does polyurethane insulation and subclavian vein approach increase lead insulation failure in pacemaker leads?
Absolute Event Rate: 88.7% vs 100%
p-value: p=0.02
Antonelli et al. (1998) conducted a cohort in Pacemaker lead insulation failure (n=290). Polyurethane insulation vs. Silicone rubber insulation was evaluated on Cumulative survival rate from insulation failure (p=0.02). Polyurethane insulated leads had a lower cumulative survival rate from insulation failure than silicone rubber leads (88.7% vs 100%, P=0.02), especially when the subclavian vein approach was used.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: