Permanent epicardial pacing in pediatric patients: seventeen years of experience and 1200 outpatient visits.

Journal: Circulation
Published:
Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of all pediatric epicardial pacing leads.

Results: All epicardial leads and 1239 outpatient visits between January 1, 1983, and June 30, 2000, were retrospectively reviewed. Pacing and sensing thresholds were reviewed at implant, at 1 month, and at subsequent 6-month intervals. Lead failure was defined as the need for replacement or abandonment due to pacing or sensing problems, lead fracture, or phrenic/muscle stimulation. A total of 123 patients underwent 207 epicardial lead (60 atrial/147 ventricular, 40% steroid) implantations (median age at implant was 4.1 years [range 1 day to 21 years]). Congenital heart disease was present in 103 (84%) of the patients. Epicardial leads were followed for 29 months (range 1 to 207 months). The 1-, 2-, and 5-year lead survival was 96%, 90%, and 74%, respectively. Compared with conventional epicardial leads, both atrial and ventricular steroid leads had better stimulation thresholds 1 month after implantation; however, only ventricular steroid leads had improved chronic pacing thresholds (at 2 years: for steroid leads, 1.9 muJ [from 0.26 to 16 mu]; for nonsteroid leads, 4.7 muJ [from 0.6 to 25 muJ]; P<0.01). Ventricular sensing was significantly better in steroid leads 1 month after lead implantation (at 2 years: for steroid leads, 8 mV [from 4 to 31 mV]; for nonsteroid leads, 4 mV [from 0.7 to 10 mV]; P<0.01). Neither congenital heart disease, lead implantation with a concomitant cardiac operation, age or weight at implantation, nor the chamber paced was predictive of lead failure.

Conclusions: Steroid epicardial leads demonstrated relatively stable acute and chronic pacing and sensing thresholds. In this evaluation of >200 epicardial leads, lead survival was good, with steroid-eluting leads demonstrating results similar to those found with historical conventional endocardial leads.

Authors
M Cohen, D Bush, V Vetter, R Tanel, T Wieand, J Gaynor, L Rhodes