Why the study?
Does tailored Automatic Capture Management (ACM) programming based on atrial threshold variability ensure effective atrial stimulation in pacemaker patients?
Does tailored Automatic Capture Management (ACM) programming based on atrial threshold variability ensure effective atrial stimulation in pacemaker patients?
Tailoring Automatic Capture Management programming based on patient conduction characteristics and time from implantation ensures highly effective atrial stimulation.
May support tailored ACM programming for atrial capture; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
The reliability of ACM is high over a long follow-up. On the basis of atrial threshold variability, a practical approach to ACM programming should be two daily atrial threshold measurements in patients with normal AV conduction and%Ap < or = 40%, or with normal sinus activity and AVB, whereas 3-4 measurements should be recommended in patients with first-degree AVB and%Ap > 40% or with recurrent atrial fibrillation and AVB. The lowest adapted stimulation output should achieve at least threshold +1 V in the first trimester after implantation, then threshold +0.5 V thereafter, in order to achieve > 99.5% effective atrial stimulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Biffi et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: