Comparison of modern steroid-eluting epicardial and thin transvenous pacemaker leads in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients

Objective: Optimal pacemaker lead choice in pediatric patients eligible for either epicardial or transvenous leads remains unclear. We compared performances of modern thin transvenous (TTV) and steroid-eluting epicardial (SEE) leads in patients followed at one pediatric center. Methods: Retrospective review of patients with qualifying leads implanted from August 1997 to March 2004. Threshold energy (TE) at implant and follow-up, sensing thresholds, lead complications, and repeat pacing-related procedures were analyzed. Lead performances were compared using t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Cox regression. Survival curves were plotted using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: A total of 370 implant procedures, 521 leads, and 1549 visits were evaluated. In all, 256 leads were SEE (49%, 184 implants) and 265 were TTV (51%, 186 implants). Median follow-up was 29 months (range 1-80 months). Patients with SEE systems were younger at implant (6 vs. 17 yrs, p < 0.001), and more had congenital heart defects (82% vs. 57%, p < 0.001). At follow-up, ventricular TEs were higher for SEE leads at implant (p < 0.001), 1 month (p < 0.001), and up to 4 years (p = 0.019). When compared across all follow-up durations combined, TTV TEs were significantly lower than SEE TEs for both atrial and ventricular leads (p < 0.001). A total of 70 repeat procedures were performed in 60 patients during the study period, which comprised 18% of SEE and 14% of TTV system patients (p = NS). In all, 18 TTV and 19 SEE leads failed (p = NS). Estimated freedom from lead failure at 1, 3, and 5 years was 97%, 88%, 85% for TTV leads and 96%, 92%, and 58% for SEE leads (log rank P = NS). Conclusions: Both SEE and TTV leads showed good mid-term performance and survival in our cohort. Higher TEs seen for SEE leads, especially ventricular and unipolar leads, may result in higher current drain and thus more generator replacements than TTV systems. Lead failure rates were comparable across lead types. TTV leads offer a promising alternative to SEE systems in terms of performance for young patients without intracardiac shunting who do not require open-chest surgery for another indication.