Key result
Micropace EPS-320 induces weaker but practically sufficient sinus and AV nodal vagal responses versus Pachon.
Why the study?
ECVS guides cardioneuroablation but requires high-frequency, high-output protocols that appeared not to be accurately reproduced with conventional electrophysiology laboratory stimulators.
Does the Micropace EPS-320 stimulator induce sufficient vagal responses compared to the Pachon neurostimulator during cardioneuroablation in patients?
RCT (n=40)
1:1 ratio
Does the Micropace EPS-320 stimulator induce sufficient vagal responses compared to the Pachon neurostimulator during cardioneuroablation in patients?
The widely available Micropace EPS-320 stimulator can effectively replace the unavailable Pachon neurostimulator for guiding cardioneuroablation, potentially increasing the global use of ECVS.
Device choice affects ECVS response strength in CNA; leaves open optimal stimulation protocols.
Background Extracardiac vagal stimulation (ECVS) is a valuable tool for guiding cardioneuroablation (CNA). ECVS requires a high-frequency, high-output stimulation protocol. It appeared that neurostimulation cannot be accurately reproduced with conventional electrophysiology laboratory stimulators. Purpose To compare the efficacy of ECVS using two devices with different stimulation protocols. Methods The study was conducted in 40 patients (age 40 ± 11 years, 50% male) undergoing cardioneuroablation. Before ablation, each patient underwent sequential bilateral ECVS with (1) a dedicated neurostimulator Pachon (Brazil) and (2) an electrophysiological stimulator (Micropace EPS-320, Australia). The stimulation protocol for Pachon was as follows: frequency of 50 Hz, amplitude of 70 V, and pulse width of 0.05 ms. The stimulation protocol for Micropace was as follows: frequency of 33 Hz, current of 25 mA, pulse width of 10 ms. Relatively low output with Micropace vs Pachon (25 mA vs 70 V) was compensated by a much larger pulse width (10 vs 0.05 ms). Energy output with Micropace vs Pachon was higher but still safe (0.12 vs 0.02 W). Stimulation trains were always 5 seconds long. The right and then the left vagus nerves were stimulated; vagal responses were assessed for the sinus node (the longest P-P interval) and for the AV node (the longest R-R interval during atrial pacing at 100 bpm). The order of use of both devices in individual patients was randomized in a 1:1 ratio. Results Using the electrophysiology stimulator Micropace, sinus and AV nodal vagal responses induced by sequential bilateral ECVS were systematically weaker than those achieved with the neurostimulator Pachon (Table). Their magnitude, however, was fully sufficient for practical use. There were no adverse events related to ECVS performed by both devices. Conclusions The commercially unavailable neurostimulator Pachon can be replaced with the widely available Micropace EPS-320 stimulator to guide the CNA. This may increase the use of ECVS worldwide and improve the efficacy and safety of better-tailored CNA procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wichterle et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Cardioneuroablation (n=40). Micropace EPS-320 stimulator vs. Pachon neurostimulator was evaluated on Sinus and AV nodal vagal responses (longest P-P and R-R intervals). Extracardiac vagal stimulation using the Micropace EPS-320 induced systematically weaker but practically sufficient sinus and AV nodal vagal responses compared to the Pachon neurostimulator.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: