PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 6204290

Insulation failure with bipolar polyurethane pacing leads.

R D Raymond·K B Nanian
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Between October, 1981, and April, 1983, 200 pacemakers were inserted at Rhode Island Hospital. Forty-five bipolar polyurethane leads (Medtronic 6972) were positioned in the right ventricle. Three (6.6%) of these leads presented 15 to 18 months post-implant with insulation failure. The manifestation was inappropriate inhibition of the pacemaker. No obvious cracking was visible on X-ray or during surgery. All the leads had low impedance, indicative of insulation failure.

Explore related subjects

Equipment FailureHumansPacemaker, ArtificialPolyurethanesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R D Raymond, K B Nanian. 1984. Insulation failure with bipolar polyurethane pacing leads.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1984.tb04921.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Tip cooling effect and failure mechanism of field-emitting carbon nanotubes.

The cooling effect accompanying field electron emission has been considered for a single carbon nanotube (CNT) used as a field emission (FE) electron source. An improved model for the failure mechanism of field emitting CNTs has been proposed and validated. Our model predicts a maximum temperature (T-max) located at an interior point rather than the tip of the CNTs, and the failure of the CNT emitters tends to take place at the T-max point, inducing a segment by segment breakdown process. A combination of Joule heating and electrostatic force effect is proposed responsible for initiating the failure of the field emitting CNT and validated by in situ FE observation.

Equipment Failure↗
PubMed2006

[Importance of an initial check-up for diagnostic radiology apparatus management].

The management of apparatus for diagnostic imaging is an important job for radiological technologists. In the last 10 years we have encountered 2227 malfunctions in 3652 days. We detected 163 cases at the initial check-up, which accounted for 7.3% of total cases. By performing an initial check-up, we detected one malfunction every 21 days and were able to keep the effects of mishaps to a minimum, prevent accidents, and obtain stable-quality images.

Equipment Failure↗