Why the study?
The Medtronic SelectSecure pacing lead offers theoretical advantages over conventional transvenous pacing leads, but whether differences in electrical function and lead survival exist in pediatric and congenital patients remained unknown.
Does the Medtronic SelectSecure pacing lead improve electrical function and lead survival compared to conventional pacing leads in pediatric and congenital patients?
Does the Medtronic SelectSecure pacing lead improve electrical function and lead survival compared to conventional pacing leads in pediatric and congenital patients?
The Medtronic SelectSecure pacing lead demonstrates similar long-term survival to conventional leads in pediatric and congenital patients, despite slightly higher capture thresholds and early dislodgement rates.
Both leads show high long-term reliability in pediatric/congenital patients; leaves open whether SelectSecure confers meaningful advantages.
INTRODUCTION: The Medtronic SelectSecure™ (Minneapolis, MN, USA) pacing lead (SS) has theoretical advantages compared to conventional (C) transvenous pacing leads (PLs). The study purpose was to determine whether differences in electrical function and lead survival exist between these PLs in a large data set of pediatric and congenital patients. METHODS: A multicenter historical longitudinal cohort study was performed comparing SS and CPL performance over a 72-month follow-up (FU). Ten centers provided data for both SS and CPL, matched for age, implanted pacing chamber, time period of implantation, and presence of heart disease. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 141 subjects in each group. No statistical differences were observed in age, gender, presence of heart disease, or pacing indication. Atrial and ventricular capture thresholds were stable throughout FU and higher in the SS group (atrial: 0.75 ± 0.02 vs 0.5 ± 0.04 V, ventricular: 1.0 ± 0.04 vs 0.75 ± 0.04 V), P < 0.001. Group PL sensing thresholds did not differ. The SS group required greater energy to pace (atrial: 0.57 ± 0.05 vs 0.32 ± 0.02 mJ, ventricular: 0.83 ± 0.05 vs 0.56 ± 0.06 mJ), P = 0.001. Early lead dislodgement and phrenic nerve stimulation were greater in the SS group (P = 0.03). Long-term lead survival was high and similar between the two groups, P = 0.35. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival of both PL was high with a low fracture rate. The SS had excellent electrical function but did show higher capture thresholds and increased energy to pace; these differences are offset by other advantages of the SS PL.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moak et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: