A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Gradually Increasing Pacing Impedances with Normal Sensing Values in Pacemaker and Defibrillation Leads: A Watchful Waiting Strategy. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: The increasing prevalence of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has led to greater data collection, including pacing impedance, a key measure of lead integrity and electrical function. While acute impedance changes may signal lead fractures or insulation defects, gradual increases are often linked to tissue-interface calcification. The optimal management of patients with progressively rising impedance remains uncertain.

Objective: To assess the prevalence, clinical consequences, and management strategies for CIED leads showing a gradual increase in pacing impedance above 1200 ohms.

Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of 59 patients (42 with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and 17 with a pacemaker) over a median follow-up of 9.2 years [range: 2.8-18.5]. Data on patient demographics, device characteristics, and outcomes associated with elevated impedance were analyzed. Impedance values, intracardiac signals, and pacing thresholds were assessed at baseline and every six months up to 18 years.

Results: Among ICD patients, 33 of 42 leads (78.6%) were preserved, while 9 were replaced (5 prophylactically, 2 due to oversensing, and 2 for threshold issues). In pacemaker patients, 12 of 17 leads (70.6%) were preserved, with 5 replacements (4 prophylactic, 1 for threshold issues).

Conclusion: A watchful waiting strategy appears safe for patients without sensing or threshold concerns and in the absence of a pacing indication. A patient-centered approach should guide the management of gradual impedance increases in CIED leads.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.08.033DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

watchful waiting
8
waiting strategy
8
pacing impedance
8
cied leads
8
patients leads
8
impedance
7
pacing
5
leads
5
patients
5
gradually increasing
4

Similar Publications