Subclinical cardiac perforation by cardiac implantable electronic device leads detected by cardiac computed tomography

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of study population

	Patients with subclinical perforation (n = 25)	Patients without subclinical perforation (n = 246)	p
Age (year)	62.2 (53.8–77.8)	71.7 (60.8–78.3)	0.174
Male	12 (48.0)	123 (50.0)	0.849
Pacemaker	19 (76.0)	200 (81.3)	0.593
DDD	17 (68.0)	137 (55.7)^*	0.222
DDD with LV lead	0 (0.0)	3 (1.2)	–^†
VVI	2 (8.0)	46 (18.7)^‡	0.617
AAI	0 (0.0)	14 (5.7)^§	–^†
ICD	6 (24.0)	43 (17.4)	0.417
Single-chamber	3 (12.0)^¶	22 (8.9)	0.999
Dual-chamber	3 (12.0)	21 (8.5)	0.473
CRT-D	0 (0.0)	3 (1.2)	–^†

Values are presented as median (interquartile range) or as n (%)
CRT-D cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator, ICD implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, LV left ventricle, RA right atrium, RV right ventricle
^*One patient with DDD pacemaker with 2 RV leads was included
^†Statistical comparison could not be performed because the number of patients was small
^‡Two patients with VVI pacemaker with 2 RV leads were included
^§One patient with AAI pacemaker with 2 atrial leads was included
^¶One patient with ICD with 2 defibrillation leads was included

ISSN: 1471-2261