Key result
Polyurethane pacing leads linked to ~20% insulation failure at 5 years versus silicone.
Why the study?
Long-term insulation failure rates of different types of pervenous pacing leads implanted from 1979 to 1992 were not well characterized.
Do urethane pacing leads have a higher rate of insulation failure compared to silicone pacing leads?
Population
149 pervenous pacing leads (107 ventricular, 42 atrial) implanted at a single hospital from May 1979 to December 1992
Comparison
Urethane pacing leads (types 6972, 4002, 4012) vs silicone pacing leads (type 5062)
Design
Long-term cohort study
Follow-up
Up to 7 years
Authors
Loading...
Urethane leads associated with higher insulation failure than silicone; leaves open material preference for new implants pending prospective data.
Cohort (n=117)
No
Do urethane pacing leads have a higher rate of insulation failure compared to silicone pacing leads?
Absolute Event Rate: 80% vs 100%
p-value: p=<0.01
Urethane pacing leads, particularly types 6972 and 4002, exhibit significantly higher long-term insulation failure rates compared to silicone leads, necessitating strict patient follow-up.
Onoe et al. (1994) conducted a cohort in Patients with implanted endocardial pacing leads (n=117). Polyurethane ventricular pacing leads (types 6972 and 4002) vs. Silicone ventricular pacing leads (type 5062) was evaluated on Insulation failure free rate at 5 years (p=<0.01). Polyurethane ventricular pacing leads (types 6972 and 4002) demonstrated significantly lower insulation failure free rates at 5 and 7 years compared to silicone leads (100% free rate).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: