Electrophysiological and Clinical Comparison of Two Temporary Pacing Leads Following Cardiac Surgery

• Published in: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology Vol. 22; no. 8; pp. 1221 - 1225
• Main Authors: HALLDORSSON, ARI O., VIGNESWARAN, WICKII T., PODBIELSKI, FRANCIS J., EVANS, DIANA M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.08.1999
• Subjects: Arrhythmias, Cardiac - diagnosis; Arrhythmias, Cardiac - etiology; Arrhythmias, Cardiac - therapy; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial - methods; cardiac surgery; Coronary Disease - surgery; Electrophysiology - methods; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Heart Rate; Humans; Male; Myocardial Revascularization - adverse effects; Pacemaker, Artificial; pacing threshold; Postoperative Care - methods; temporary pacing lead; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0147-8389; 1540-8159
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1999.tb00603.x

Temporary pacing leads are invaluable in diagnosis and treatment of arrhythmia after cardiac surgery. The ideal lead possesses reliable pacing and sensing capabilities throughout the postoperative period. Ease of handling and a low complication rate are essential. This study compares a new lead (Medtronic model #6492) to a temporary pacemaker lead established in clinical use (Medtronic model #6500). One lead of each type was placed in the right atrium and ventricle in 33 patients undergoing elective coronary revascularization. Pacing function was measured on the first and fourth postoperative days. Lead complications were documented. On day 1, there was no statistical difference between lead types in terms of pacing (voltage threshold, current threshold), impedance, or sensing (P wave amplitude, R wave amplitude). On day 4, both leads showed an increase in pacing threshold and a decrease in sensing ability. The only statistical difference between lead types was in atrial sensing on day 4, as measured by the P wave amplitudes (1.95 ± 0.18 V for model 6492 vs 1.40 ± 0.14 V for model 6500, P < 0.05). Two leads of each model failed to pace in the ventricular position and one lead in each model in the atrial position. There were no complications attributable to either pacemaker lead. We found that both lead types were reliable and functioned well. The Medtronic Model #6492 lead demonstrated better long‐term sensing, although in this study the difference was not clinically significant.