Atrial Lead (atrial + lead)

Distribution by Scientific Domains


Selected Abstracts


Right Atrial Pacemaker Lead Thrombosis Causing Tricuspid Inflow Obstruction

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2 2009
AYLIN TUGCU M.D.
A 75-year-old man was admitted to our hospital with a complaint of progressive dyspnea with effort. The patient had a permanent pacemaker that was implanted 16 years ago. Transesophageal echocardiography revealed a large, mobile mass in the right atrium attaching to the insertion site of the atrial lead at the tricuspid valve level. Because of the size, mobility, and location of the mass, urgent surgical removal was considered. The mass was successfully removed. Histologic examination of the mass demonstrated a partially organized thrombus. The postoperative course was uneventful and the patient's symptoms improved remarkably after operation. [source]


Extraction of the Inner Coil of a Pacemaker Lead Slid into the Pulmonary Artery

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2 2007
F.E.S.C., PIER GIORGIO GOLZIO M.D.
A patient required lead extraction for chronic draining sinus, due to abandoned leads. Preoperatively, the chest film showed a filament in the right pulmonary artery: it was the inner coil of an old atrial lead that, while remaining anchored to the auricle, slid outside the outer coil. By right subclavian approach, the old ventricular lead and the outer coil of the atrial lead were removed. Then, by right jugular approach, the freely floating end of theinner atrial coil was grasped by a pig-tail catheter, drawn back into the superior vena cava, exteriorized by a Lasso catheter, and finally extracted. [source]


Postpacemaker Implant Pericarditis: Incidence and Outcomes with Active-Fixation Leads

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 5 2002
SOORI SIVAKUMARAN
SIVAKUMARAN, S., et al.: Postpacemaker Implant Pericarditis: Incidence and Outcomes with Active Fixation Leads. Pericarditis has been noted as a potential complication of pacemaker implantation. This study evaluated the risk of developing pericarditis following pacemaker implantation with active-fixation atrial leads. Included were 1,021 consecutive patients (mean age 73.4 ▒ 0.4 years, range 16,101 years; 45.2% women) undergoing new pacemaker system implantation between 1991 and 1999 who were reviewed for the complication of pericarditis. The incidence and outcomes of postimplantation pericarditis in patients receiving active-fixation atrial leads were compared to those not receiving these leads. Of 79 patients who received active-fixation atrial leads, 4 (5%) developed pericarditis postpacemaker implantation. Of 942 patients with passive-fixation atrial leads or no atrial lead (i.e., a ventricular lead only), none developed pericarditis postoperatively (P < 0.001). Of patients receiving active-fixation ventricular leads only (n = 97), none developed pericarditis. No complications were apparent at the time of implantation in patients who developed pericarditis. Pleuritic chest pain developed between 1 and 28 hours postoperatively. Three patients had pericardial rubs without clinical or echocardiographic evidence of tamponade. They were treated conservatively with acetylsalicylic acid or ibuprofen and their symptoms resolved without sequelae in 1,8 days. One patient (without pericardial rub) died due to cardiac tamponade on postoperative day 6. Postmortem examination revealed hemorrhagic pericarditis with no gross evidence of lead perforation. Pericarditis complicates pacemaker implantation in significantly more patients who receive active-fixation atrial leads. It may be precipitated by perforation of the atrial lead screw through the thin atrial wall. Patients developing postoperative pericarditis should be followed closely due to the risk of cardiac tamponade. [source]


"Sensing alternans" in a patient with a newly implanted pacemaker

CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY, Issue 3 2006
Amgad N. Makaryus M.D.
Abstract This report describes the case of an 80-year-old man with a history of coronary artery disease who presented with acute pericarditis secondary to pacemaker lead perforation of the ventricular wall 2 days after undergoing dual lead pacemaker implantation. The electrocardiogram revealed sinus rhythm with an intra-atrial conduction delay and intermittent failure of atrial sensing as evidenced by alternating atrial spikes in every other P wave. The noted pericardial effusion and the likely shifting of the atrial lead with each alternate beat caused the "sensing alternans" that was seen on the admission electrocardiogram. [source]


Noncatheter-Based Delivery of a Single-Chamber Lumenless Pacing Lead in Small Children

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 7 2007
DAMIEN KENNY M.B.Ch.B., M.R.C.P.C.H.
Objectives:The model 3830 lead (SelectSecureď Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) is a bipolar, fixed-screw, 4.1-F pacing lead designed for site-selective pacing. Implantation is usually performed using an 8-F deflectable catheter system. This catheter is not ideal for smaller children because of both the sheath size and the relatively large deflected curves. We describe a simpler noncatheter-based delivery system in seven children. Methods:A 4.1-F SelectSecure lead was introduced via a 5-F SafeSheath (Thomas Medical, Malvern, PA, USA) placed in the left subclavian vein. The SelectSecure lead was passed into the inferior vena cava (IVC) and a loop created, which was then withdrawn into the right atrium. Once in position, the lead was screwed into the myocardium, the SafeSheath was peeled off, and the lead connected to the generator. Results:From March 2005 until September 2006, five right atrial leads and two right ventricular leads were implanted in seven patients (six female) with a median weight of 15 kg (8.1,19.4). All leads were successfully placed with excellent pacing thresholds. The median screening time was 7.1 minutes (4.8,11.4) with a median radiation dose of 83 cGy cm2. There were no procedural complications and no lead displacements seen on a median follow-up of 10 months. Conclusions:Delivery of the 4.1-F SelectSecure pacing lead to the right heart is possible using a noncatheter-based delivery system. This is effective and safe and does not require the use of a larger delivery system. This allows these thin isodiametric pacing leads to be used advantageously in small children. [source]


Atrial Evoked Response Integral for Automatic Capture Verification in Atrial Pacing

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 1p2 2003
GIUSEPPE BORIANI
BORIANI, G.,et al.:Atrial Evoked Response Integral for Automatic Capture Verification in Atrial Pacing. Beat-by-beat Autocapture is currently limited to operation in the ventricle with bipolar leads. The authors investigated the integral of the negative-going portion of the atrial evoked response integral (AERI) as a potential resource for verification of atrial capture. Intracardiac electrogram signals were collected from 59 patients (ages 67.8 ▒ 15.1 years) with bipolar, low polarization atrial leads. The signals were collected over a mean period of 6.1 months (minimum 4 days) after lead implantation. St. Jude Medical Affinity pulse generators were used to perform automatic capture threshold tests while the electrogram signals were recorded by a Model 3510 programming device. These signals were transferred to a personal computer in digital form for later analysis. The AERI was calculated at each programmable pacing voltage until capture was lost. The difference between the polarization integral at loss of capture and evoked response integral with successful capture was sufficient to justify enabling the atrial Autocapture feature in 53 of 59 patients in whom bipolar pacing and unipolar sensing was performed. The authors developed a calibration routine to identify automatically those patients in whom atrial Autocapture could be programmed On, based on the polarization integral at loss of capture, the estimated maximum polarization integral, and the AERI. Preliminary analysis indicated that the AERI is a practical resource for beat-by-beat atrial capture detection when used with low polarization leads. (PACE 2003; 26[Pt. II]:248,252) [source]


Postpacemaker Implant Pericarditis: Incidence and Outcomes with Active-Fixation Leads

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 5 2002
SOORI SIVAKUMARAN
SIVAKUMARAN, S., et al.: Postpacemaker Implant Pericarditis: Incidence and Outcomes with Active Fixation Leads. Pericarditis has been noted as a potential complication of pacemaker implantation. This study evaluated the risk of developing pericarditis following pacemaker implantation with active-fixation atrial leads. Included were 1,021 consecutive patients (mean age 73.4 ▒ 0.4 years, range 16,101 years; 45.2% women) undergoing new pacemaker system implantation between 1991 and 1999 who were reviewed for the complication of pericarditis. The incidence and outcomes of postimplantation pericarditis in patients receiving active-fixation atrial leads were compared to those not receiving these leads. Of 79 patients who received active-fixation atrial leads, 4 (5%) developed pericarditis postpacemaker implantation. Of 942 patients with passive-fixation atrial leads or no atrial lead (i.e., a ventricular lead only), none developed pericarditis postoperatively (P < 0.001). Of patients receiving active-fixation ventricular leads only (n = 97), none developed pericarditis. No complications were apparent at the time of implantation in patients who developed pericarditis. Pleuritic chest pain developed between 1 and 28 hours postoperatively. Three patients had pericardial rubs without clinical or echocardiographic evidence of tamponade. They were treated conservatively with acetylsalicylic acid or ibuprofen and their symptoms resolved without sequelae in 1,8 days. One patient (without pericardial rub) died due to cardiac tamponade on postoperative day 6. Postmortem examination revealed hemorrhagic pericarditis with no gross evidence of lead perforation. Pericarditis complicates pacemaker implantation in significantly more patients who receive active-fixation atrial leads. It may be precipitated by perforation of the atrial lead screw through the thin atrial wall. Patients developing postoperative pericarditis should be followed closely due to the risk of cardiac tamponade. [source]


Atrial Lead Placement During Atrial Fibrillation.

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 7 2000
Is Restitution of Sinus Rhythm Required for Proper Lead Function?
Unexpected atrial fibrillation (AF) during implantation of an atrial pacemaker lead is sometimes encountered. Infra-operative cardioversion may lengthen and complicate the implantation process. This study prospectively investigates the performance of atrial leads implanted during AF (group A) and compares atrial sensing and pacing properties to an age- and sex-matched control group in which sinus rhythm had been restored before atrial lead placement (group B). Patient groups consisted of 32 patients each. All patients received DDDE pacemakers and bipolar, steroid-elating, active fixation atrial leads. In patients with AF at the time of implantation (group A), a minimal intracardiac fibrillatory amplitude of at least 1.0 mV was required for acceptable atrial lead placement. In patients with restored sinus rhythm (group B). a voltage threshold < 1.5 V at 0.5 ms and a minimal atrial potential amplitude > 1.5 mV was required. Patients of group A in whom spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm did not occur within 4 weeks after implantation underwent electrical cardioversion to sinus rhythm. Pacemaker interrogations were performed 3, 6, and 12 months after implantation. In group A, implantation time was significantly shorter as compared to group B (58.7 ▒ 8.6 minutes vs 73.0 ▒ 17.3 minutes, P < 0.001). Mean atrial potential amplitude during AF was correlated with the telemetered atrial potential during sinus rhythm (r = 0.49, P < 0.001), but not with the atrial stimulation threshold. Twelve months after implantation, sensing thresholds (1.74 ▒ 0.52 mV vs 1.78 ▒ 0.69 mV, P = 0.98) and stimulation thresholds (1.09 ▒ 0.42 V vs 1.01 ▒ 0.31 V.P = 0.66) did not differ between groups A and B. However, in three, patients of group A, chronic atrial sensing threshold was , 1 mV requiring atria) sensitivities of at least 0.35 mV to achieve reliable atrial sensing. Atrial lead placement during AF is feasible and reduces implantation time. However, bipolar atrial leads and the option to program high atrial sensitivities are required. [source]