Right ventricular pacemaker lead position is associated with differences in long-term outcomes and complications

Introduction Cardiac pacing from the right ventricular apex is associated with detrimental long-term effects and non-apical pacing locations may be associated with improved outcomes. There is little data regarding complications with non-apical lead positions. The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes and lead-related complications associated with differing ventricular lead tip position. Methods and Results All adult patients who underwent dual-chamber pacemaker implantation from 2004–2014 were included if they had post-procedure chest radiographs amenable to lead position determination. Long-term outcomes and lead-related complication rates were recorded. These were compared at 5 years between: 1) apical and septal leads, 2) apical and non-septal non-apical (NSNA), and 3) apical and septal with >40% ventricular pacing. We retrospectively evaluated 3,450 patients, which included 238 with a septal position and 733 with NSNA lead positions. Septal lead position was associated with a lower mortality compared to apical leads (24% vs 31%, p = 0.02). In patients with greater than 40% pacing, septal leads were associated with significantly higher rates of incident atrial fibrillation compared to apical leads (49% vs 34%, p = 0.04). NSNA positions were associated with a significantly higher rate of lead dislodgement (4% vs 2%, p = 0.005) and need for revision (8% vs 5%, p = 0.005). Conclusions Septal pacemaker lead position is associated with a lower mortality compared to apically placed leads, but a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation with higher percentage ventricular pacing. NSNA lead locations are associated with more complications and should be avoided. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved