Key result
J-shaped passive-fixation atrial leads were not superior to straight leads, with similar rates of lead replacement (4.3% vs 8.7%, P=NS) and electrical parameters over a mean follow-up of 30 months.
Why the study?
Do J-shaped passive-fixation atrial leads improve electrical parameters or reduce lead replacements compared to straight leads in patients undergoing atrial lead implantation?
Population
92 patients undergoing atrial lead implantation at a single institution, excluding VVIR to DDDR upgrades and…
Comparison
J-shaped passive-fixation atrial leads vs Straight passive-fixation atrial leads
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
30 +/- 11.9 months (range 6-53 months)
Authors
Loading...
J-shaped leads offer no advantage over straight leads in this cohort; leaves open whether randomized trials would alter selection.
Cohort (n=92)
No
Do J-shaped passive-fixation atrial leads improve electrical parameters or reduce lead replacements compared to straight leads in patients undergoing atrial lead implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.3% vs 8.7%
p-value: p=NS
J-shaped passive-fixation atrial leads do not offer superior efficacy or safety compared to straight leads for atrial implantations.
Krupienicz et al. (2000) conducted a cohort in Pacemaker implantation requiring atrial leads (n=92). J-shaped passive-fixation atrial leads vs. Straight passive-fixation atrial leads was evaluated on Lead replacement using active-fixation leads (p=NS). J-shaped passive-fixation atrial leads were not superior to straight leads, with similar rates of lead replacement (4.3% vs 8.7%, P=NS) and electrical parameters over a mean follow-up of 30 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: