Abstract
Background One of the most common modes of lead failure is outer insulation breach which may result in myopotential noise and device malfunction. “Pseudo-unipolarization” of bipolar pacing stimuli, as observed from a routine 12-lead ECG has been observed with insulation breaches. We sought to characterize this ECG finding to detect lead this type of lead malfunction.
Methods 138 transvenous leads were analyzed (88 with known malfunction and 50 normal leads). The highest amplitude (any of 12-leads on standard ECG, 10mm/mV, GE Marquette) of a bipolar pacing stimulus on ECG was recorded and compared to a control dataset of newly implanted leads. An ROC curve for maximum ECG bipolar pacing stimulus amplitude was generated for prediction of lead functional status (normal vs malfunction).
Results The cohort (49% females, 34% non-white) had an average age of 67 ± 16 years at implant. The malfunction group consisted of 61% RA and 39% RV leads with mean pacing output 2.74V at 0.5ms. There was a significant difference in ECG bipolar stimulus amplitudes at time of identification of failure (15.06 ± 13.533mm or 7.89 ± 7.56mm per V, p<0.001) compared to those of normal leads (2.54 ± 1.265mm or 0.86 ± 0.41mm per V). An EKG stimulus amplitude cut-off at 3.5mm for the prediction of this type of lead malfunction demonstrated a sensitivity of 86.4% and a specificity of 76%. When normalized for programmed stimulus output, a cutoff of 5mm/V demonstrated a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 92% (AUC 0.967 95% CI 0.938-0.996).
Conclusion For a given output, the maximum amplitude of a bipolar pacing stimulus on ECG is significantly lower in normal functioning leads compared to those with known malfunction due to insulation breach. This simply-derived variable demonstrated good accuracy at identifying this lead failure due to insulation breach and exposed electrodes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
retrospective
Funding Statement
no funding sources used
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Emory University Institutional Review Board
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Mary Pelling and Michael Lloyd are joint first authors.
Data Availability
All data can be made available upon request
