Why the study?
Does a longer waiting period after active fixation reduce pacing thresholds in patients receiving the Nanostim leadless pacemaker system?
Does a longer waiting period after active fixation reduce pacing thresholds in patients receiving the Nanostim leadless pacemaker system?
A longer waiting period after active fixation of a Nanostim leadless pacemaker may significantly reduce pacing thresholds, potentially avoiding unnecessary device repositioning.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support longer waiting before Nanostim repositioning; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Key Teaching Points•Compared to conventional pacemaker systems, pacing thresholds in the Nanostim leadless pacemaker showed greater magnitude of improvement of pacing threshold.•Even if an initial pacing threshold is high, a longer waiting period may lead to significant reduction of the pacing threshold.•The unique behavior of the Nanostim pacemaker system is likely owing to the difference in the size of the helix and the position of the anode compared to traditional active-fixation transvenous leads. •Compared to conventional pacemaker systems, pacing thresholds in the Nanostim leadless pacemaker showed greater magnitude of improvement of pacing threshold.•Even if an initial pacing threshold is high, a longer waiting period may lead to significant reduction of the pacing threshold.•The unique behavior of the Nanostim pacemaker system is likely owing to the difference in the size of the helix and the position of the anode compared to traditional active-fixation transvenous leads.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kawata et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: