Why the study?
Does a new large contact area-small active surface endocardial electrode reduce stimulation thresholds compared to conventional electrodes in patients requiring permanent cardiac pacing?
Does a new large contact area-small active surface endocardial electrode reduce stimulation thresholds compared to conventional electrodes in patients requiring permanent cardiac pacing?
A new large contact area-small active surface endocardial electrode demonstrates lower stimulation thresholds at one month post-insertion compared to conventional electrodes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
New electrode linked to lower thresholds; leaves open whether this improves outcomes or warrants randomized trials in permanent pacing.
Three different electrodes, i.e. conventional large and small surface endocardial electrodes and a new large contact area-small active surface electrode, have been compared with respect to their stimulation thresholds for cardiac pacing in 94 patients with 96 electrodes. Both capacitor discharge and constant current pulses were used for the measurements. The average 2 msec impulse threshold for the 47 mm(2) electrode reached its maximum on the 14th postoperative day and was 3.6+/-1.4 V and 4.4+/-1.8 mA. One month after insertion, the threshold was 3.2+/-1.4 V and 3.9+/-1.7 mA. Corresponding values after one month for the 6 mm(2) electrode were 2.0+/-1.0 V and 1.7+/-0.9 mA and for the new electrode 1.7+/-0.9 V and 1.4+/-0.8 mA. Thresholds increased by about 20% when the impulse duration was diminished from 2 to 0.5 msec. The new large area-small active surface electrode offers advantages of significantly smaller increases in stimulation thresholds during the first month after insertion and good attachment to the endocardium.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wahlberg et al. (1977) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: