Pacemaker

  • Durability of bipolar coaxial endocardial pacemaker leads compared with unipolar leads
    Marcelo E. Helguera, MD, Sergio L. Pinski, MD, James D. Maloney, MD, Javier R. Woscoboinik, MD, Richard G. Trohman, MD, Victor A. Morant, MD, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD and Lon W. Castle, MD
    Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine January 1994, 61 (1) 25-28;

    Bipolar coaxial leads are preferable to unipolar leads in most aspects. Yet survival of bipolar coaxial leads in long-term follow-up studies seems worse than that of unipolar leads, indicating the need to reevaluate the risk-benefit ratio of the coaxial design.

  • Adults with congenital complete heart block: 2 5-year follow-up
    Cynthia M. Pordon, DO and Douglas S. Moodie, MD
    Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine November 1992, 59 (6) 587-590;
  • A novel approach to determining the cause of pacemaker lead failure
    George K. Brodell, MD and Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD
    Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine January 1992, 59 (1) 91-92;
  • Atrial pacemaker leads compared
    Martin M. Masterson, MD, James D. Maloney, MD, E. Murat Tuzcu, MD, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, Atila Emre, MD, Gabriel Vanerio, MD, Tony W. Simmons, MD, Victor A. Morant, MD and Lon W. Castle, MD
    Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine July 1990, 57 (5) 433-436;

    Pacemaker leads from eight different manufacturers were compared for differences in acute pacing and sensing characteristics.

  • Silicone pericarditis
    Norman B. Ratliff, M.D., James T. McMahon, Ph.D., Earl K. Shirey, M.D. and Laurence K. Groves, M.D.
    Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine March 1984, 51 (1) 185-189;