| Title |
Longitudinal Outcomes of Epicardial and Endocardial Pacemaker Leads in the Adult Fontan Patient
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pediatric Cardiology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00246-018-1919-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Geoffrey D. Huntley, Abhishek J. Deshmukh, Carole A. Warnes, Suraj Kapa, Alexander C. Egbe |
| Abstract |
Placement of an epicardial pacemaker system is often preferred over an endocardial system in patients who have undergone a Fontan operation, but data are limited on how these two systems perform over time in patients with Fontan palliation. We performed a retrospective review of adults with Fontan palliation who had pacemaker implantation and interrogation data at Mayo Clinic from 1994 to 2014. Lead parameters, pacing mode, and polarity were collected at the earliest device interrogation report. Clinic notes and device interrogation reports were reviewed at implantation, 6 months, and yearly after implantation to determine impedance, capture threshold (CT), and energy threshold (ET). There were 87 patients with 168 leads in the study cohort. The mean follow-up time was 7.7 years (6 months-19 years). There were 143 epicardial leads (57 atrial and 86 ventricular) and 25 endocardial leads (20 atrial and 5 ventricular). There was no difference in the baseline lead parameters between epicardial and endocardial leads for impedance (610 ± 259 versus 583 ± 156 Ω, p = 0.93), CT (2.0 ± 1.3 versus 1.8 ± 1.3 V, p = 0.28), or ET (7.1 ± 12.5 versus 6.8 ± 18.1 µJ, p = 0.29). Compared to endocardial leads, ventricular epicardial leads were associated with temporal decrease in impedance and increase in ET. Regarding clinical outcomes, epicardial leads had higher rates of failure but similar generator longevity in comparison to endocardial leads. Ventricular epicardial leads were associated with temporal decrease in impedance and increase in ET. Epicardial leads had a higher rate of failure but similar generator longevity compared to endocardial leads. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 62% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#20,522,137
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Cardiology
#1,106
of 1,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,112
of 328,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Cardiology
#24
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,418 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.