Comparison of results with different left ventricular pacing leads

Eyal Nof*, Osnat Gurevitz, Shemy Carraso, David Bar-Lev, David Luria, Sharona Bachar, Michael Eldar, Michael Glikson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Aims: To compare different coronary sinus (CS) leads and delivery systems (DSs) for left ventricular pacing. Methods and results: Delivery systems-related (including CS dissection and dislocations during sheath/stylet removal) and lead-related (including failure to accomplish implantations and long-term malfunctions resulting in abandonment or repositioning/replacing of the lead) complications between systems and leads were compared. We used Medtronic (MDT) attain® DS (n = 123) with over-the-wire (OTW) (4193, 4194) and stylet-driven (2187) leads, and Guidant (GDT)® DS (n = 126) with Easytrak OTW leads (4513, 4518, and 4525). Coronory sinus dissection occurred in 6/123 (5%) cases using the MDT DS vs. 7/126 (6%) with GDT DS (P= NS). Dislocations during sheath/stylet removal occurred in 8/123 cases (6%) with MDT DS, and in 8/126 (6%) with GDT DS (P= NS). Failure to achieve successful implantation occurred in 6/32 (19%) of the 2187 leads, in 11/87(13%) of the 4193/4194 leads, in 7/94(7%) of the 4513/4518 leads, and in 4/29 (14%) of the 4525 leads (P= NS). Long-term lead-related complications occurred in 5/32 (15%) of the 2187 leads, 19/80 (23%) of the 4193/4194 leads, 19/93 (20%) of the 4513/4518 leads, and 2/28 (7%) of the 4525 leads (P= NS). Conclusion: No significant differences in complication rates between systems and leads were observed. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)35-39
Number of pages5
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 2008


  • Cardiac resynchronization therapy
  • Delivery systems
  • Left ventricular leads


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of results with different left ventricular pacing leads'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this