Key result
Polyurethane insulated ventricular leads demonstrated a significant decrease in lead impedance over 44 months (495 to 444 ohms, P<0.01), whereas polyethylene leads remained unchanged.
Why the study?
Do polyurethane insulated ventricular leads compared to polyethylene leads affect electrophysiological characteristics and complications in patients requiring pacing?
Population
48 patients receiving pacing leads connected to a programmable ventricular inhibited pulse generator
Comparison
Polyurethane insulated ventricular leads vs Polyethylene insulated ventricular leads
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
44 months
Authors
Loading...
Impedance decline in polyurethane leads is clinically insignificant; leaves open whether insulation material affects long-term lead performance.
Cohort (n=48)
Do polyurethane insulated ventricular leads compared to polyethylene leads affect electrophysiological characteristics and complications in patients requiring pacing?
Absolute Event Rate: 444% vs 378%
p-value: p=<0.01
Polyurethane pacing leads exhibit a statistically significant but clinically insignificant decrease in impedance over 44 months compared to polyethylene leads.
Bluhm et al. (1990) conducted a cohort in Patients requiring ventricular pacing (n=48). Polyurethane insulated ventricular leads vs. Polyethylene insulated ventricular leads was evaluated on Lead impedance (p=<0.01). Polyurethane insulated ventricular leads demonstrated a significant decrease in lead impedance over 44 months (495 to 444 ohms, P<0.01), whereas polyethylene leads remained unchanged.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: