학술논문

Epicardial versus endocardial permanent pacing in adults with congenital heart disease.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Source
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology (J INTERVENT CARD ELECTROPHYSIOL), Sep2010; 28(3): 235-243. (9p)
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
1383-875X
Abstract
Background: Permanent pacing (PM) in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) presents unique challenges-with little known about the long-term outcomes.Methods: Pacemaker complications and reinterventions were reviewed over a 38-year period and were grouped by epicardial or endocardial approaches.Results: The average age at intervention was 37 ± 19 years for 106 patients and 259 PM procedures were performed (2.4 ± 2 per patient). From the first PM procedure, patients were followed for 11.6 ± 14 years. The most common indications for initial PM intervention were heart block (25%) and sinus node dysfunction (20%), yet reintervention was driven primarily by lead failure (49%). Endocardial systems were initially implanted in 73 patients (67%). Epicardial pacing was more common in patients with complex CHD (p = 0.006), cyanosis (p < 0.001), residual shunts (0.01), or Ebstein's anomaly (p = 0.01). Fifty-one devices (28%) developed lead or generator complications. Epicardial systems were most likely to develop lead failure (p < 0.0001), predominantly in the ventricular lead (p < 0.0001). Endocardial systems were found to be more durable than the epicardial systems (p = 0.023), and Ebstein's anomaly or an epicardial system was an independent predictor of lead failure.Conclusions: Permanent pacing in CHD is associated with considerable morbidity and the need for repeat intervention, especially in those with Ebstein's anomaly. Epicardial pacing systems appear to have a higher incidence of lead failure and are significantly less durable in this group.