In Vivo Thrombogenicity of Implantable Cardiac Pacing Leads

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Population: Thrombogenicity of implantable cardiac pacing leads. Intervention: Silicone rubber leads vs. Smooth and roughened extruded polyurethane leads. Primary outcome: Index of thrombogenicity based on the weight of total thrombus formed per unit surface area.

Q: What does this research mean for the field?

Extruded polyurethane cardiac pacing leads demonstrate thromboresistance comparable to silicone rubber leads during acute intra-arterial implantation. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

T. Devanathan; James Sluetz; Keith A. Young

doi:10.3109/10731198009118990

January 1, 1980Biomaterials Medical Devices and Artificial Organs

In Vivo Thrombogenicity of Implantable Cardiac Pacing Leads

View at Publisher

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Key result

Silicone rubber leads demonstrate greater thromboresistance than polyurethane leads in an acute canine model.

Why the study?

Implantable cardiac pacing leads require good thromboresistance, but comparative thrombogenicity of different insulator materials was not established.

Does the type of tubular insulator surface (silicone rubber vs polyurethane) affect the in vivo thrombogenicity of implantable cardiac pacing leads in a canine model?

Structured PICO

Does the type of tubular insulator surface (silicone rubber vs polyurethane) affect the in vivo thrombogenicity of implantable cardiac pacing leads in a canine model?

P

Population

Acute canine intra-arterial implantation model testing three types of tubular insulator surfaces for cardiac pacing leads.

I

Intervention

Implantable cardiac pacing leads with tubular insulator surfaces (silicone rubber, smooth extruded polyurethane, roughened extruded polyurethane)

C

Comparator

Comparison among the three insulator materials (silicone rubber, smooth polyurethane, roughened polyurethane)

O

Outcome

Index of thrombogenicity based on the weight of total thrombus formed per unit surface area of the vascular implantsurrogate

Silicone rubber and polyurethane pacing leads demonstrate comparable thromboresistance in an acute in vivo canine model.

Ask about this paper

Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.

Implication

Supports acute material comparisons for pacing leads; leaves open translation to chronic human implants.

Abstract

Implantable cardiac pacing leads must possess good thromboresistance. Three types of tubular insulator surfaces over the conductor wires were investigated. Materials tested were silicone rubber, smooth and roughened extruded polyurethane. Acute canine intra-arterial implantation methods were used. An index of thrombogenicity based on the weight of total thrombus formed per unit surface area of the vascular implant was determined for each test sample. Scanning electron microscope photographs of the lead surfaces were made. While silicone rubber leads were most thromboresistant, the polyurethane leads performed equally well.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Devanathan et al. (1980) studied Thrombogenicity of implantable cardiac pacing leads. Silicone rubber leads vs. Smooth and roughened extruded polyurethane leads was evaluated on Index of thrombogenicity based on the weight of total thrombus formed per unit surface area. Silicone rubber leads were the most thromboresistant, but smooth and roughened extruded polyurethane leads performed equally well in an acute canine intra-arterial implantation model.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aab4799c3c04096cf9d05a1 https://doi.org/10.3109/10731198009118990

View at Publisher

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

In Vivo Thrombogenicity of Implantable Cardiac Pacing Leads

Structured PICO

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

In Vivo Thrombogenicity of Implantable Cardiac Pacing Leads

Structured PICO

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading