Key result
Unipolar pacing leads demonstrated high 10-year survival (95.8% atrial, 97.1% ventricular), while specific bipolar models exhibited poor survival and unreliability requiring careful monitoring.
Why the study?
Do bipolar pacing leads have different long-term survival and failure rates compared to unipolar pacing leads in patients requiring pacemakers?
Population
15,366 patients who underwent 18,053 pacemaker lead implants in Denmark (data up to May 1994).
Comparison
Bipolar pacing leads vs Unipolar pacing leads
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
Up to 10 years
Authors
Loading...
May warrant closer monitoring of select bipolar leads; leaves open optimal lead selection pending randomized data.
Observational (n=15,366)
Yes
Do bipolar pacing leads have different long-term survival and failure rates compared to unipolar pacing leads in patients requiring pacemakers?
Unipolar pacing leads demonstrate superior long-term survival compared to bipolar leads, with specific bipolar models showing high failure rates that require careful monitoring.
Møller et al. (1996) conducted an observational in Pacemaker implantation (n=15,366). Bipolar pacing leads vs. Unipolar pacing leads was evaluated on Lead failure (need for replacement or abandonment due to pacing or sensing problems excluding displacement). Unipolar pacing leads demonstrated high 10-year survival (95.8% atrial, 97.1% ventricular), while specific bipolar models exhibited poor survival and unreliability requiring careful monitoring.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: