Clinical Validation of New Pacing-Sensing Configurations for Atrial Automatic Capture Verification in Pacemakers

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated an atrial automatic capture verification scheme based on atrial evoked response (AER). Atrial pacing was between Atip and Can (Atip-Can) using different coupling capacitances (CCs). Independent pairs of sensing electrodes between Aring and Vtip (Aring-Vtip) or between Aring and a separate indifferent electrode (Aring-Indiff) were used to reduce pacing-induced afterpotentials. METHODS AND RESULTS: A custom-made external pacing system was used to perform automatic step-up and step-down pacing (0.1 to 7.1 V at 0.5 msec, step size of 0.1 V) using different CCs (2 or 15 microF). Intracardiac signals from Aring-Indiff and Aring-Vtip were independently recorded and analyzed both in real time and off-line to detect AER. Every paced beat also was visually inspected and compared with surface ECG to verify the captures. With the intracardiac signals properly filtered, AER detection was based on the signal within a window of 12 to 65 msec after the stimulus. Data from 27 patients (4 chronic and 23 acute implantations; age 65.6+/-13.9 years) were analyzed. Bipolar atrial lead measurements using a standard pacing system analyzer were as follows (mean +/- SD): impedance 695+/-227 ohms, P wave amplitude 4.2+/-2.3 mV, slew rate 1.1+/-0.9 V/sec, and pacing threshold at 0.5 msec 1.0+/-0.5 V. The results with CC = 2 microF showed that of 9,500 atrial paced beats, correct capture verification rates were 99.8% (Aring-Indiff) and 99.4% (Aring-Vtip). Similar results were achieved with CC = 15 microF (99.7% and 99.5%, respectively). CONCLUSION: AER can be reliably detected using independent pacing (Atip-Can) and sensing (Aring-Vtip or Aring-Indiff) electrodes. Therefore, atrial automatic capture verification by AER detection is feasible.     

心房按需起搏的临床应用

AAI起搏是治疗房室传导正常的病态窦房结综合征(SSS)的理想方法,它可保持正常的房室收缩顺序及防止VVI起搏时心房压力上升,对预防心房纤颤(Af)有一定作用。本组17例AAI起搏主要用于房室传导正常的SSS,其中4例合并间断发作的Af,1例合并阵发性室上性心动过速(PSVT)。在随诊观察1～15个月之间,Af未再发作,PSVT也得到控制。本组17例全都采用螺旋形主动电极。我们体会其优点为电极可固定在心房之任何部位,操作简单,不易移位,采用可程控多参数的SSI型起搏器,便于定期进行心房调搏,观察房室传导功能的变化及处理可能发生的感知障碍及输出阻滞。     

Placement of atrial pacing leads during atrial fibrillation. Feasibility and subsequent lead performance.

AIMS: To assess the feasibility of placing permanent atrial pacing leads during atrial fibrillation (AF) and whether such leads function satisfactorily. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective study of 17 consecutive patients in whom permanent atrial leads were positioned during an episode of paroxysmal AF. Fluoroscopic position ('figure of 8' or side-to-side movement and anterior position in RAO projection), lead impedance (> 300 but < 1000 ohms) and intracardiac electrogram (average peak to peak amplitude > 1 mV) were used to define an acceptable lead position. At 8 weeks post implant we measured: pulse duration pacing threshold at 5 V; lead impedance at 5 V and 0.5 ms; intracardiac electrogram (EGM) signal amplitude. At the end of the study we reviewed patients to establish whether AF had become permanent. In all patients, follow-up demonstrated satisfactory lead function. All leads had impedances between 300 and 1000 ohms. Pacing thresholds were all < 0.1 ms at 5 V. Mean atrial EGM amplitude seen in sinus rhythm was 3.3 mV (range 1.2-8.4); in patients where all follow-up was in AF in was 2.1 mV (range 1.5-2.5). Nine patients (53%) developed permanent AF. CONCLUSION: Placing atrial leads during AF is feasible using the technique described. However, some patients progress to chronic AF, eliminating the benefits of atrial pacing.     

Prevention of chronic atrial fibrillation by pacing in the region of Bachmann's bundle: results of a multicenter randomized trial

INTRODUCTION: Atrial pacing locations that decrease atrial activation and recovery time may be preferable in patients with a history of atrial arrhythmias. This multicenter prospective randomized study compared the efficacy of Bachmann's bundle (BB) region pacing to right atrial appendage (RAA) pacing in patients with recurrent paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with standard pacing indications (n = 120, 70+/-11 years) were randomized to atrial pacing in either the RAA (n = 57) or BB region (n = 63). Implantation time was similar between groups (88+/-36 min [n = 38] for BB vs 83+/-34 min [n = 34] for RAA). No differences in pacing threshold, impedance, or sensing between BB and RAA groups were observed at implantation or after the 6-week, 6-month, and 1-year follow-up periods. Average length of follow-up was 12.6+/-7.4 months for the BB group and 11.8+/-8.0 months for the RAA pacing group. The percentage of atrial pacing was similar between groups (61%+/-34% RAA vs 65%+/-31% BB at 2 weeks after implant). BB atrial pacing significantly (P < 0.05) shortened p wave duration compared with sinus rhythm (123+/-21 msec vs 132+/-21 msec, n = 50) 2 weeks after implant. In contrast, p wave duration was longer during atrial pacing from the RAA position compared with sinus rhythm (148+/-23 msec vs 123+/-23 msec, n = 37). Additionally, p wave duration was shorter during BB pacing than during RAA pacing. Patients with BB pacing had a higher (P < 0.05) rate of survival free from chronic AF (75%) compared with patients with RAA pacing (47%) at 1 year. CONCLUSION: BB region pacing is safe and effective for attenuating the progression of AF.     

Long-term performance of single-pass physiological pacing.

BACKGROUND: Single-pass physiological pacing has several advantages over dual-lead physiological pacing. The present study evaluated the long-term performance of single-pass pacing using the overlapping biphasic impulse stimulation technique. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 30 patients with single-pass VDD pacing and 8 patients with single-pass DDDC pacing were followed up for 1 year by basal and magnet electrocardiograms and real-time telemetry. All the patients showed satisfactory atrial sensing and pacing capture threshold. The atrial sensing thresholds at implant and at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months of follow-up were 2.5+/-0.67 mV, 1.6+/-0.6 mV, 1.1+/-0.5 mV, 1.0+/-0.5 mV and 1.0+/-0.04 mV, respectively. The corresponding values for atrial pacing threshold at a pulse wave of 0.5 ms were 2.5+/-1.0 V, 4.4+/-0.9 V, 3.8+/-1.2 V, 3.6+/-1.4 V and 3.8+/-1.4 V. Of the patients with DDDC pacing, 88% showed stable pacing capture in the supine position, 75% in the upright position and 62% in both positions. Diaphragmatic contraction was seen in 25% of cases with DDDC pacing. No such event was seen in patients with VDD pacing. CONCLUSIONS: Single-pass pacing is safe, technically easy and cheap as compared to dual-lead systems. However, it would be prudent to recommend DDDC pacing in patients who require predominantly VDD pacing and only occasionally atrial pacing, as the latter showed a low percentage of stable atrial pacing capture in both upright and supine positions as well as a significant percentage of diaphragmatic contraction.     

Autocapture compatibility in patients with the MembraneEX lead and Affinity pulse generators.

The first Autocapture generation worked well with all recommended leads. The newer Autocapture generation provides a more sensitive resolution for evoked response testing and its implementation in a dual-chamber device. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the performance of the Affinity SR/DR pacemaker with the new Autocapture algorithm in combination with the small surface area pacing lead MembraneEX in 129 patients. Autocapture ventricular threshold, sensing threshold, lead impedance, evoked response (ER) and polarization signals were determined at implantation and discharge, as well as after 1 and 3 months. Autocapture recommendation rate was based on the ER sensitivity test. The median pacing threshold was 0.38, 0.50, 0.75, 0.75 V at implant, discharge, 1 and 3 months post-implant, respectively. The respective data for median lead impedance were 744, 605, 649 and 691 ohms; median sensing threshold was 12.5 mV at all visits. The median ER amplitude was 9.0, 10.1, 9.9 and 10.1 mV and the median polarization signal 0.39 mV at all visits. The frequency of recommended Autocapture activation was 98.3%, 99.2%, 98.3% and 96.2% of all patients at implant, at discharge, 1 and 3 months post-implant respectively. In conclusion, the studied pulse generator enabled, in combination with this pacing lead, in >95% of all patients activation of Autocapture.     

Stimulation of the left ventricle through the coronary sinus with a newly developed 'over the wire' lead system--early experiences with lead handling and positioning.

AIMS: This report describes the initial clinical results with a newly designed guiding catheter and an 'over the wire' pacing lead based on angiolasty technology to stimulate the left ventricle using the transvenous route via the coronary sinus (OTW-CV lead). METHODS AND RESULTS: In 75% of the 15 patients (6 males, 9 females, mean age of 53 +/- 9 years) with congestive heart failure, access to coronary sinus required less than 2 min; in one patient. the attempt failed. Mean R wave amplitudes plus or minus the standard deviation, measured at apical, mid-ventricular and basal positions the anterior (11.4 +/- 9.2, 10.8 +/- 6.2, 9.3 +/- 6.3 mV) and lateral or posterior veins (10.1 +/- 10.7, 8.6 +/- 6.4, 7.7 +/- 4.3 mV) showed a trend favouring the apex without statistical significance. Pacing impedance, measured at the same sites and vein tributaries, ranged from 670 +/- 191 to 915 +/- 145 ohms. Pacing thresholds measured at apical and mid ventricular sites were significantly lower than at the base in the anterior vein 2.5 +/- 2.8 and 2.8 +/- 1.8 vs 5.6 +/- 2.7 V at 0.5 ms, P<0.001). Thresholds in the lateral/posterior veins showed a similar trend but did not reach statistical significance (3.0 +/- 1.7, 3.6 +/- 1.4 +/- 1.8 V at 0.5 ms). In patients, in whom thresholds were determined in more than one vein, the 'best' mean threshold was 1.6 +/- 0.7 V. CONCLUSION: The new 'over the wire' lead and guiding catheter system allows uncomplicated access to the coronary sinus and the depth of the coronary vein tributaries. Left ventricular sensing and pacing thresholds are acceptable for chronic use in implanted cardiac rhythm management systems.     

Kappa 700型双腔起搏器的临床随访

观察具有自动夺获功能的双腔起搏器 (Kappa 70 0 )置入后参数的变化和安全性情况。随访 1 3例置入Kappa70 0型起搏器患者 ,观察术中、术后 1周及术后 1 ,3,6个月心室起搏阈值、输出电压、输出脉宽、电极阻抗、R波振幅的变化 ,了解起搏器的工作情况。术后测得的起搏阈值较术中明显升高 ( 0 .71± 0 .2 3Vvs 0 .39± 0 .0 6V ,P <0 .0 5 ) ,术后不同时间测得的起搏阈值无明显差异。R波振幅术中、术后无明显差异。术后阻抗较术中明显降低 ( 62 5 .7± 1 2 3.0Ωvs 894.3± 1 90 .3Ω ,P <0 .0 5 ) ,术后 1个月后的阻抗基本稳定。起搏器自动夺获功能打开后 ,平均输出电压为 0 .96～ 1 .1 6V ,平均输出脉宽 0 .32～ 0 .34ms,平均心房感知灵敏度 0 .71～ 0 .83mV ,心室感知灵敏度 3.82～3.91mV。随访期间起搏、感知功能正常 ,无误感知现象。具有自动夺获功能的双腔起搏器输出电压低 ,安全可靠。     

Effect of Left Ventricular Function on Long-Term Left Ventricular Pacing and Sensing Threshold

Background: The effect of left ventricular (LV) systolic function on the long-term left ventricular pacing and sensing threshold is unclear. Methods and Results: We studied the effect of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) on the LV pacing and sensing threshold in 56 patients (mean age: 70.2 ± 10.5 years) underwent permanent LV pacing using a self-retaining coronary sinus lead (Model 1055 K, St Jude Medical, USA). In 49 patients, the LV lead was implanted for conventional pacemaker indication (sick sinus syndrome = 14, heart block = 26 or slow atrial fibrillation = 9). The remaining 7 patients were implanted for congestive heart failure. The LV pacing and sensing threshold, and lead impedance were compared between patients with LVEF <40% (Group 1, n = 28) and LVEF >40% (Group 2, n = 28) during implant and at 3-month follow up. The LV pacing lead was successfully implanted in all patients without any lead dislodgement on follow-up. At implant, Group 1 patients had a significant lower R wave amplitude, but similar LV pacing threshold and lead impedance as compared to Group 2. However, at 3-month follow-up, Group 1 patients had a significantly higher LV pacing threshold compared to Group 2 patients. There were no significant differences in the sensing threshold and lead impedance between the two groups. Furthermore, there was also a significant interval increase in LV pacing threshold in Group 1 patients (0.94 ± 0.12 V) after 3 months, but not in Group 2 patients (0.16 ± 0.08 V, p < 0.01). Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the LV systolic function has a significant impact on the long-term LV pacing threshold. The long-term left ventricular pacing threshold in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction increased after implant and was higher than patients with normal left ventricular systolic function.     

Automatic measurement of atrial pacing thresholds in dual-chamber pacemakers: Clinical experience with atrial capture management

BACKGROUND: The Medtronic EnPulse pacemaker incorporates the new atrial capture management (ACM) algorithm to automatically measure atrial capture thresholds and subsequently manage atrial pacing outputs. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of ACM. METHODS: Two hundred patients with an indication for a dual-chamber pacemaker underwent implantation. ACM thresholds and manually measured atrial pacing thresholds were assessed at follow-up visits. Clinical equivalence was defined as the ACM-measured threshold being within -0.25 V to +0.5 V of the manually measured threshold. The clinician analyzed all ACM measurements performed in-office for evidence of proarrhythmia. RESULTS: All 200 implanted patients had a 1-month visit, and validated manual and in-office ACM threshold data were available for 123 patients. The ACM threshold was 0.595 +/- 0.252 V, and the manual threshold was 0.584 +/- 0.233 V. The mean difference was 0.010 V with a 95% confidence interval of (-0.001, 0.021). The mean difference over all visits was 0.011 V. For all patients, the individual threshold differences were within the range of clinical equivalence at all visits. No atrial arrhythmias were observed during 892 ACM tests in 193 patients. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the ACM algorithm is safe, accurate, and reliable over time. ACM was demonstrated to be clinically equivalent to the manual atrial threshold test in all patients at 1 month and over the entire follow-up period of up to 6 months. ACM ensures atrial capture, may save time during follow-up, and can be used to manage atrial pacing outputs.     

Testing a new mechanism for left interventricular septal pacing: the transseptal route; a feasibility and safety study.

AIMS: To prove the feasibility and safety of left interventricular septal pacing. BACKGROUND: Right ventricular apical pacing is an established but haemodynamically less favourable pacing method compared with transvenous left ventricular pacing. Alternatively, we propose a simple septal screw-in lead for left interventricular septal pacing. METHODS: A pacemaker lead with a long insulated screw with the two distal windings forming an active tip was implanted from the right side of the interventricular septum to the subendocardial left side in six goats. A special guiding sheath enabled stable, easy, and swift implantation of the lead. The implantation was performed using fluoroscopy together with. normal and contrast echocardiography (via the long pre-shaped sheath) and electrocardiographic signals (His-bundle recordings in conjunction with atrial and ventricular intracardiac signals). The screw was also positioned at other locations along the free wall, and at the interventricular septum to assess possible adverse effects at other sites. RESULTS: An average of 2.2 +/- 1.5 positions per goat was attempted. No adverse effects were noticed during implantation or at necropsy. In two goats, the final position was at the junction of the right ventricular wall and the interventricular septum. Parameters at the final positions were as follows: the pacing threshold was 1.3 +/- 1.0 V at 0.5 ms; the pacing impedance was 1022 +/- 463 omega at 4.8 V and 0.5 ms. R-wave amplitudes were 17.6 +/- 7.6 mV. CONCLUSION: Left interventricular septal pacing is feasible. In our study it was safely performed in six goats. The pacing threshold was low, and the stability of the lead system was good. Implantations in humans and animals and haemodynamic evaluations are needed to reveal the potential benefits of this new form of left interventricular septal pacing.     

Steroid-eluting epicardial pacing leads in pediatric patients: encouraging early results.

OBJECTIVES. This study evaluated the pacing and sensing characteristics of a new porous-tipped steroid-eluting epicardial lead in a group of pediatric patients. BACKGROUND. Pacing in children may be complicated by small patient size, patient growth and the prevalence of structural congenital heart disease in children requiring pacing. Epicardial pacing has been associated with a high incidence of problems with sensing and capture, prompting the use of transvenous endocardial pacing when possible. In some children, epicardial pacing may still be desirable because of small patient size, potential for caval obstruction, previous cardiac surgery limiting transvenous access to the heart, or the need to repair congenital heart disease at the time of pacemaker insertion. METHODS. Twelve patients aged 3 weeks to 18 years underwent placement of 23 epicardial pacing leads (8 atrial, 15 ventricular). Pulse width thresholds, sensing thresholds and lead impedance were measured weekly for 6 weeks, then at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months after pacemaker implantation. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months. RESULTS. Ventricular pulse width thresholds did not change over time, whereas atrial pulse width thresholds improved significantly. At 6 months, the mean pulse width threshold at 2.5 V for the atrial and ventricular leads was 0.10 +/- 0.03 and 0.19 +/- 0.09 ms, respectively. The thresholds were slightly lower at 12 and 18 months. At the most recent follow-up, all atrial leads sensed appropriately at 2.5 mV and all ventricular leads at 5 mV. CONCLUSIONS. These encouraging early results suggest that steroid-eluting epicardial pacing leads may be an attractive option for children needing epicardial pacing. Their excellent pacing and sensing characteristics may allow reliable dual-chamber pacing in infants who are too small for transvenous pacing.     

A comparison between passive and active fixation leads in the coronary sinus for biatrial pacing: initial experience.

AIMS: It has been reported that biatrial pacing can prevent the recurrence of atrial fibrillation. This technique requires a stable coronary sinus (CS) lead position for left atrial pacing. We report our experience of CS pacing with a specifically designed lead [Medtronic 2188 (n= 19)] and active fixation leads [Pacesetter Tendril (n=3), Medtronic Capsurefix (n=6)] in 21 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and a normal mean left atrial size of 39 mm (range 33-54 mm). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Medtronic 2188 lead, successful initial CS canulation and lead positioning was achieved in all 19 patients. One patient developed subclavian vein thrombosis 3 months after initial implant. Eight patients (42%) experienced subsequent lead displacement (12 displacements in total). Of these, seven had their lead replaced with active fixation leads. In addition, two patients underwent active fixation lead implantation at first implant. CS canulation and lead positioning was successful in all nine patients. No patient suffered displacement of an active fixation lead. There were no complications in this group. Twelve of the 19 (66%) Medtronic 2188 leads were functioning at long-term follow-up (11 +/- 4 months) with a biatrial pacing threshold of 2.4 +/- 1 V. Eight of the nine (89%) active fixation leads were functioning at long-term follow-up (6 +/- 3 months) with a biatrial pacing threshold of 2.9 +/- 1.1 V. Using a combined approach 95% of patients had a functioning CS lead at long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: Active fixation leads can safely be used for left atrial pacing via the CS with good long-term pacing thresholds and stability.     

Single-lead VDD-pacing system incorporating high impedance stimulation: a multicentre study.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of a new VDD pacing system incorporating a high impedance, single-pass VDD lead. The new lead is a bipolar, steroid-eluting, high impedance lead with a full-ring atrial dipole. METHODS AND RESULTS: The system was implanted in 46 patients with high degree atrioventricular (AV) block. Patients were followed at pre-discharge, 6 weeks, and 3 months. The mean measured P-wave amplitude was stable, with values between 1.18 and 1.43 mV. Atrial sensing was reliable during short-term evaluation at rest and in the sitting position, with AV-synchronous stimulation between 98.79 +/- 6.90% and 99.73 +/- 1.47%. Holter recordings after 6 weeks demonstrated AV-synchronous stimulation in 99.57 1.03% of all P-waves. Lead impedance was stable during follow-up, with mean values between 1000 and 1167 Q. Mean ventricular pacing thresholds (at 0.5 ms) were 0.47 V at implant, 0.49 V at pre-discharge, 0.74 V at 6 weeks, and 0.72 V at 3 months. R-wave amplitude remained stable between 14.9 and 16.7 mV during follow-up. CONCLUSION: This new single-pass VDD lead system provided reliable atrial sensing and stable high impedance stimulation during a 3-month follow-up period.     

Atrial lead placement in the right atrial appendage during recent or chronic arrhythmia

An atrial arrhythmia could be encountered during the atrial lead implantation. The lead placement must subsequently be delayed after restitution of the sinus rhythm or completely abandoned. The authors investigate the atrial lead placement during atrial arrhythmia and the lead performance at 6-month follow-up. The study population was 65 patients aged 78.5 years, 42 males and 28 structural heart diseases. They were implanted for sick sinus syndrome (n=14), atrioventricular block (n=44), infra-hisian conduction abnormality (n=7) in association with an atrial fibrillation (63.1%), an atrial flutter (24.6%) or an atrial tachycardia (12.3%). The onset of the arrhythmia was < or = 7 days (47.7%) or > 7 days (52.3%). An atrial lead was placed in the right atrial appendage under fluoroscopic control. If the sinus rhythm was not restored at 1 month, an electrical cardioversion was performed. The per-implantation atrial signal amplitude was 2.2+/-1.5 mV (range 0.5 mV to 7 mV). Sinus rhythm was restored in 54 patients. At 1 month, one patient was in an incessant atrial fibrillation. The 53 patients in sinus rhythm had a good atrial lead performance. Out of 46 patients who completed the 6-month follow-up, 4 had an arrhythmia recurrence. The 42 patients in sinus rhythm had a good atrial lead performance. At 1 and 6-month follow-up, the atrial pacing threshold (1.1+/-0.7 V vs 1.2+/-1.0 V, ns) and the atrial signal amplitude (2.1+/-1.0 mV and 2.1+/-0.9 mV, ns) were stable. Comparing the patients with a recent or a chronic arrhythmia, the pacing thresholds (1.2+/-1.1 V vs 1.14+/-0.8 V, ns), the atrial signal amplitudes (2.17+/-0.9 mV vs 2.05+/-0.9 mV, ns) and the proportion of satisfactory pacemaker performance in DDD(R) mode for the patients in sinus rhythm (100% vs 100%, ns) did not statistically differ between the two groups at 6 months. In conclusion, the placement of an atrial lead in the right atrial appendage during an atrial arrhythmia is feasible with a good lead performance at 6 months in sinus rhythm regardless the onset time of the arrhythmia and provides a satisfactory atrial-based pacing with the preservation of the atrioventricular synchrony.     

植入起搏电极参数的测定和随访

为了解起搏阈值、起搏阻抗和感知阈值的变化，对４２根心房电极和４９根心室电极进行了随访。结果显示：心房电极慢性期起搏阈值为１．１７±０．３５Ｖ／０．５ｍｓ，出现波动者６例（２７．３％），心室电极为１．２７±０．３８Ｖ／０．５ｍｓ，出现波动者７例（３０．４％）；１９根电极的起搏阻抗在急性期均有波动，慢性期为５８５．６±１５０Ω，慢性期出现波动者２例（１０．５％）；１１根心房电极慢性期感知阈值（Ｐ波振幅）与植入时相一致。     

Bipolar atrial sensing thresholds in sinus rhythm and atrial tachyarrhythmias. A comparative analysis in patients with DDDR pacemakers.

Automatic mode switching (AMS) function in dual chamber pacemakers depends on adequate detection of atrial tachyarrhythmias. There are few data on showing how intra-operative atrial signal amplititude during sinus rhythm can predict atrial tachyarrhythmias after pacemaker implantation. In 43 patients undergoing DDDR pacemaker implantation and atrioventricular nodal ablation for the treatment of drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, atrial sensing thresholds during sinus rhythm and during induced atrial tachyarrhythmias (24-48 h after device implantation) were analysed. Five different DDDR pacemaker systems were implanted (Chorus 7034, Ela Medical n = 13; Meta DDDR 1254, Telectronics Pacing Systems n = 12; Vigor DR 1230, Guidant n = 6; Trilogy DR 2364, Pacesetter, n = 2; Kappa DR 401, Medtronic USA n = 10). Every patient received a steroid-eluting, screwing, bipolar atrial lead (Medtronic, Capsure-Fix 4068). The mean P wave amplitude during implantation was 3.91 +/- 1.14 mV. The mean atrial sensing threshold during sinus rhythm and during all modes of induced atrial tachyarrhythmias was 3.35 +/- 1.0 mV, and 1.52 +/- 0.92 mV, respectively (P < 0.001). Atrial fibrillation was induced in 36 patients. The mean sensing threshold during sinus rhythm in this patient group was 3.39 +/- 1.01 mV, the mean sensing threshold during atrial fibrillation was 1.27 +/- 0.56 mV, reflecting a 63% reduction of sensing threshold compared with sinus rhythm (P < 0.001). Atrial flutter was induced in seven patients. The mean sensing threshold during sinus rhythm was 2.92 +/- 1.19 mV, the mean sensing threshold during atrial flutter was 2.79 +/- 1.26 mV, reflecting a reduction of 5% (ns) compared with sinus rhythm. Atrial sensing thresholds during sinus rhythm were significantly correlated with sensing thresholds during atrial tachyarrhythmias (r = 0.44; P < 0.002), but there were significant variations in intra-individual results. The reduction of atrial sensing thresholds between sinus rhythm and induced atrial tachyarrhythmias ranged from 30% to 82%. CONCLUSION: Bipolar atrial sensing thresholds during sinus rhythm are correlated with sensing thresholds during atrial tachyarrhythmias, but there is a large degree of variance in individual patients. A 4:1 to 5:1 atrial sensing safety margin based on sensing threshold during sinus rhythm is a predictor for adequate postoperative detection of atrial tachyarrhythmias and the function of AMS devices.     

Increased AAI mode pacing threshold after termination of atrial fibrillation by acute administration of disopyramide phosphate.

AIMS: We studied changes in atrial pacing threshold after termination of atrial fibrillation (AF) by acute administration of disopyramide phosphate (DP) to elucidate the suitable setting for atrial pacing output before AF termination. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four patients with sick sinus syndrome implanted with AAI mode pacemakers were examined. Disopyramide phosphate (2 mg/kg body weight) was injected intravenously for termination of a total of eight AF episodes. The maximal pacing threshold after AF termination (5.2+/-0.8 V at 0.45 ms) was significantly higher than that at baseline (1.3+/-0.2 V at 0.45 ms; P<0.01) and the average increment was 433+/-68%. During a period free from AF, an acute administration of DP did not increase the atrial pacing threshold and serum disopyramide levels were not toxic. CONCLUSION: The increased atrial pacing threshold observed after AF termination cannot be explained by the action of DP alone. However, our results suggest that atrial pacing output should be set at the maximum value before DP is administered to induce AF termination in patients with AAI pacemaker-dependent bradyarrhythmias.     

低位房间隔起搏与右心耳起搏的临床对比研究

目的 探讨低位房间隔起搏与右心耳起搏在植入操作时间、起搏参数方面的差异.方法 选取40例因窦房结功能障碍或成人获得性房室传导阻滞导致的缓慢型心律失常行起搏治疗的患者分为两组.其中,房间隔组20例,采用主动固定螺旋电极行低位房间隔起搏;右心耳组20例,采用被动固定翼状电极行右心耳起搏.对比两组电极植入操作时间,电极植入时、术后1个月、3个月的起搏参数（阈值和阻抗）.结果 房间隔组与右心耳组比较,心房电极植入操作时间和起搏参数在术中、术后1个月、3个月差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.结论 低位房间隔起搏与右心耳起搏具有相似的电极植入操作时间以及相同的起搏参数,为临床起搏治疗的有效部位.     

Nutzen einer VDD-Defibrillationselektrode zur Aufzeichnung von atrialen Elektrogrammen bei Vorhofflimmern/-flattern

BACKGROUND: Monitoring of atrial signals improves the accuracy in identifying supraventricular tachyarrhythmias to prevent inappropriate therapies in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). Since complications due to the additional atrial lead were found in dual chamber ICD systems with 2 leads, we designed a single-pass VDD-lead for use with dual chamber ICDs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After promising animal experiments in a German multicenter study a prototype VDD lead (single-coil defibrillation electrode with 2 additional fractally coated rings for bipolar sensing in the atrium) was temporarily used in 20 patients. Atrial and ventricular signals were recorded during sinus rhythm, atrial flutter, atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Terminations of ventricular arrhythmias were performed by internal DC shock. RESULTS: The implantation of the electrode was successful in 18 of 20 patients. Mean atrial pacing threshold was 2.45 +/- 0.9 V/0.5 ms, mean atrial impedance was 215 +/- 31 Ohm. Atrial amplitudes were greater during sinus rhythm (2.7 +/- 1.6 mV) than during atrial flutter (1.36 +/- 0.28 mV, p < 0.05) or atrial fibrillation (0.92 +/- 0.29 mV, p < 0.01). During ventricular fibrillation atrial "sinus"-signals had significantly (p < 0.01) lower amplitudes than during sinus rhythm. Mean ventricular sensing was 13.3 +/- 7.9 mV, mean ventricular impedance was 577 +/- 64 Ohm. Defibrillation was successful with 20 J shock. 99.6% of P waves could be detected in sinus rhythm and 85 +/- 9.9% of flutter waves during atrial flutter. During atrial fibrillation 55% of atrial signals could be detected without modification of the signal amplifier. CONCLUSIONS: A new designed VDD dual chamber electrode provides stable detection of atrial and ventricular signals during sinus rhythm and atrial flutter. For reliable detection of atrial fibrillation modifications of the signal amplifier are necessary.