Why the study?
Does temporary transvenous pacing with an active fixation bipolar lead provide safe and effective pacing in children?
Does temporary transvenous pacing with an active fixation bipolar lead provide safe and effective pacing in children?
The use of an active fixation bipolar lead for temporary transvenous pacing appears safe and effective in a small cohort of neonates and children.
Supports feasibility of active-fixation leads for temporary pediatric pacing; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Various techniques and electrode catheters have been developed for effective and safe temporary transvenous cardiac pacing. In neonates and children, lead dislodgment and myocardial perforation have been attendant risks with passive fixation leads. We report our experience with the recently introduced Medtronic 6416 active fixation bipolar lead in a small group of children. Between January 2000 and February 2002, 4 children (2 boys, 2 girls) underwent temporary transvenous pacing with the Medtronic 6416 lead. The median age at implantation was 4.25 years (range: 5 days-13 years), median weight was 14.5 kg (range: 2.5 kg-54 kg) and the median duration of temporary pacing was 19.5 days (range: 5-38 days). The indication for temporary pacing was AV block (n = 2), sinus arrest (n = 1) and sinus node dysfunction (n = 1). The acute pacing threshold was <1.5 mA with no significant rise in the follow-up period. The venous access for lead placement was femoral vein (n = 2), internal jugular vein (n = 1), and subclavian vein (n = 1). There were no complications related to implantation or in the follow-up period. The Medtronic 6416 lead appears to be a safe and effective tool in temporary transvenous pacing in neonates and children.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pinto et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: