Why the study?
Does transvenous pacing compared to epicardial pacing improve stimulation thresholds and reduce lead-related complications in pediatric patients requiring permanent pacemakers?
Does transvenous pacing compared to epicardial pacing improve stimulation thresholds and reduce lead-related complications in pediatric patients requiring permanent pacemakers?
Transvenous pacing in pediatric patients offers lower acute stimulation thresholds and fewer lead-related complications compared to epicardial pacing, though steroid-eluting epicardial leads may be a viable alternative when transvenous access is not possible.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May favor transvenous over epicardial leads when feasible in children; leaves open need for randomized confirmation of long-term outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Permanent cardiac pacing in children and adolescents is rare and often occurs by means of epicardial pacing. Based on two decades of experience, operative and postoperative data of patients with epicardial and transvenous pacing were analyzed retrospectively. METHODS: Between October 1979 and December 1998, 71 patients (mean age, 5.3+/-4.2, range, 1 day-16.2 years; mean body weight, 18+/-12; range, 8-56 kg) underwent permanent pacemaker implantation. Indications were sinus node dysfunction and atrio-ventricular block following surgery for congenital heart disease (69%), or congenital atrioventricular block (31%). Pacing was purely atrial (1.4%), purely ventricular (73%), ventricular with atrial synchronization (5. 6%), or atrioventricular synchronized (20%). Epicardial pacing was established in 49 (69%), transvenous in 22 (31%) patients. Follow-up was 3.4+/-3.8 years (epicardial) and 3.0+/-4.0 years (transvenous). RESULTS: Epicardial leads were implanted in younger patients (mean age: 4.5 vs. 7.0 years, P<0.05) and preferably after surgery induced atrioventricular block (78 vs. 46%, P<0.05). The youngest patient with transvenous pacing was 1.3 years old (weight, 8.5 kg). At implantation epicardial ventricular stimulation threshold at 1.0 ms was 1.07+/-0.46 vs. 0.53+/-0.31 V (transvenous) (P<0.05). The age-adjusted rate of lead-related reoperations was significantly higher in patients with epicardial leads (P<0.05), mainly due to increasing chronic stimulation thresholds resulting in early battery depletion. In three patients who received steroid-eluting epicardial leads initial low thresholds persisted after five month to one years. In two patients with recurrent epicardial threshold increase, steroid-eluting epicardial leads led to good acute and chronic thresholds after nine to 15 month. Two post-operative death (2.8%) were probably due to a dysfunction of the (epicardial) pacing system. CONCLUSIONS: Transvenous pacing in the pediatric population is associated with a lower acute stimulation threshold and a lower rate of lead-related complications. If epicardial pacing is necessary (e. g. small body weight, special intracardiac anatomy (e.g. Fontan), impossible access to superior caval vein), steroid-eluting leads may be considered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jörg S. Sachweh (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: