Skip Navigation

Europace 2000 2(3):228-232; doi:10.1053/eupc.2000.0105
© 2000 by European Society of Cardiology
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Levy, T.
Right arrow Articles by Paul, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Levy, T.
Right arrow Articles by Paul, V.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

A comparison between passive and active fixation leads in the coronary sinus for biatrial pacing

Initial experience

T. Levy, S. Walker, S. Rex and V. Paul

Department of Cardiology, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, Harefield Hospital Harefield, Middlesex, U.K.

AIMS: It has been reported that biatrial pacing can prevent the recurrence of atrial fibrillation. This technique requires a stable coronary sinus (CS) lead position for left atrial pacing. We report our experience of CS pacing with a specifically designed lead [Medtronic 2188 (n=19)] and active fixation leads [Pacesetter Tendril (n=3), Medtronic Capsurefix (n=6)] in 21 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and a normal mean left atrial size of 39 mm (range 33–54 mm).

METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Medtronic 2188 lead, successful initial CS canulation and lead positioning was achieved in all 19 patients. One patient developed subclavian vein thrombosis 3 months after initial implant. Eight patients (42%) experienced subsequent lead displacement (12 displacements in total). Of these, seven had their lead replaced with active fixation leads. In addition, two patients underwent active fixation lead implantation at first implant. CS canulation and lead positioning was successful in all nine patients. No patient suffered displacement of an active fixation lead. There were no complications in this group. Twelve of the 19 (66%) Medtronic 2188 leads were functioning at long-term follow-up (11±4 months) with a biatrial pacing threshold of 2·4±1 V. Eight of the nine (89%) active fixation leads were functioning at long-term follow-up (6±3 months) with a biatrial pacing threshold of 2·9±1·1 V. Using a combined approach 95% of patients had a functioning CS lead at long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION: Active fixation leads can safely be used for left atrial pacing via the CS with good long-term pacing thresholds and stability.

Key Words: Biatrial pacing, active fixation, coronary sinus

Correspondence: Dr T. Levy MRCP, Specialist Registrar Cardiology, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, Harefield Hospital, Harefield, Middlesex UB9 6JH, U.K.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 EuropaceHome page
H. Nagele, M. Azizi, S. Hashagen, M.A. Castel, and S. Behrens
First experience with a new active fixation coronary sinus lead
Europace, June 1, 2007; 9(6): 437 - 441.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.