Implantation of SelectSecure™ Leads in Children

Conventional pacemaker leads have a lumen to help facilitate lead implantation and extraction. To achieve a small diameter (4.1 Fr), a bipolar, fix-screw, steroid-eluting, lumenless lead (SelectSecureTM lead, model 3830, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) was developed.1,2 The small diameter of the SelectSecureTM lead is accomplished with the removal of the stylet lumen. Removal of the lumen may also facilitate the lead extraction since a locking stylet is not going to be needed. Because of the lack of lumen, the delivery of this lumenless lead is performed using an 8.4-Fr deflectable catheter. Following advancement of the SelectSecureTM catheter to the desired location along with the dilator and the guidewire, the lead is fixated at the target site with rotation of the lead body. A recent multicenter study revealed the safety and efficacy of this new lead design.1 At 3-month follow-up, atrial lead complication rate was 3% and ventricular lead complication rate was 5.9%. The lead dislodgement was the most common complication for both leads. The author noted a decreased complication rate following training sessions held to aim at improving implant techniques. Because of the durability and lower thresholds associated with endocardial pacing, this approach is preferred to epicardial pacing by most pediatric centers in the absence of precluding factors such as intracardiac shunts or young age. Silvetti et al. recently reported their 20-year experience with pediatric cardiac pacing and demonstrated significantly higher epicardial lead failures compared to the endocardial leads (31% vs 9%).3 Despite its advantages, transvenous pacemaker implantations have certain limitations in children. One major concern is venous obstruction.4 Pacemaker leads with smaller body design may help in preservation of venous patency in children. A recent study by Bar-Cohen et al. demonstrated venous obstruction of variable degrees in 25% of chronically paced children.5 One of the interesting findings of that

[1]  Z. Emkanjoo,et al.  Predictors of venous obstruction following pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: a contrast venographic study on 100 patients admitted for generator change, lead revision, or device upgrade. , 2007, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[2]  R. Koerfer,et al.  Implantation of Active Fixation Leads in Coronary Veins for Left Ventricular Stimulation: Report of Five Cases , 2007, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[3]  A. De Luca,et al.  Validation of Criteria for Selective His Bundle and Para‐Hisian Permanent Pacing , 2006, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[4]  A. Manolis,et al.  Multi‐Center Clinical Experience with a Lumenless, Catheter‐Delivered, Bipolar, Permanent Pacemaker Lead: Implant Safety and Electrical Performance , 2006, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[5]  L. Ravà,et al.  Twenty years of paediatric cardiac pacing: 515 pacemakers and 480 leads implanted in 292 patients. , 2006, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[6]  G. Rigatelli,et al.  A Feasible Approach for Direct His‐Bundle Pacing Using a New Steerable Catheter to Facilitate Precise Lead Placement , 2005, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[7]  Yaniv Bar-Cohen,et al.  Age, size, and lead factors alone do not predict venous obstruction in children and young adults with transvenous lead systems. , 2005, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[8]  L. Davidovic,et al.  Prevalence of Venous Obstruction in Permanent Endovenous Pacing in Newborns and Infants: Follow‐Up Study , 2005, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[9]  R. Yee,et al.  Multicenter chronic electrical efficacy of a deflectable catheter-delivered lumenless permanent pacemaker lead , 2005 .

[10]  M. Peuster,et al.  Endocardial Pacing After Fontan‐Type Procedures , 2005, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[11]  D. Casavant,et al.  Permanent, direct His-bundle pacing: a novel approach to cardiac pacing in patients with normal His-Purkinje activation. , 2000, Circulation.

[12]  B. McCrindle,et al.  Risk Factors for Venous Obstruction in Children with Transvenous Pacing Leads , 1997, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[13]  P. Karpawich,et al.  Superior vena cava and innominate vein dimensions in growing children : an aid for interventional devices and transvenous leads. , 2006, Pediatric cardiology.