Yinglu Hao
Premier Hospital in Yunxi City, China
Posters & Accepted Abstracts: J Clin Case Rep
Despite the advancements in active fixation leads, physicians are reluctant towards their use in routine clinical practice. Data on comparison of active fixation leads with passive fixation leads is scant. We evaluated the effectiveness of active-fixation compared to passive-fixation pacing leads by observing lead performance parameters in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation in China. A single-center, prospective observational study including a total of 1217 who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation in Department of Cardiology of People�s Hospital of Yuxi City during March 1995 to March 2015. Efficacy was determined based on parameters such as implantation time, and pacing threshold. Additionally, lead dislocation, bleeding, pneumothorax, hematoma/ infection was also determined. A total 530 patients received active fixation electrode and 497 patients received passive fixation electrode. Active fixation group reported significantly lesser mean implantation time and pacing thresholds (P<0.05) as compared with passive fixation electrode group and threshold in atrial active fixation pacing leads were stable throughout the observation period. No instances of lead perforation and cardiac tamponade were reported in active fixation group. There were absolutely no cases of implantation failure (P<0.001), electrode dislocation/re-fixation in one year (P=0.014) in active fixation group with reportedly lesser bed rest time (P=0.027) and duration of hospital stay (P=0.038). In conclusion, active fixation leads demonstrated satisfactory thresholds with no adverse lead related events, good stability and steady long-term thresholds till 1 year follow up indicating active fixation is better than passive fixation electrode.
Email: yingluhao@aliyun.com
Journal of Clinical Case Reports received 1345 citations as per Google Scholar report
Spanish 
Chinese 
Russian 
German 
French 
Japanese 
Portuguese 
Hindi 