Key result
The RA(Ring)-->Can sensing configuration successfully measured pacing thresholds in 96.8% of tests compared to 91.0% for RA(Ring)-->Ind, and yielded larger minimum atrial evoked response amplitudes (P<0.0001).
Why the study?
Does the RA(Ring)-->Can sensing configuration improve the performance of a right atrial automatic capture verification algorithm compared to RA(Ring)-->Ind in patients with RA bipolar leads?
Population
38 patients with right atrial bipolar leads from four manufacturers. Atrial evoked response signals were…
Comparison
Right atrial automatic capture verification… vs Right atrial automatic capture verification…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
acute
Authors
Loading...
RA(Ring)-->Can may improve atrial capture verification success; leaves open need for randomized outcome trials before practice change.
Observational (n=38)
Does the RA(Ring)-->Can sensing configuration improve the performance of a right atrial automatic capture verification algorithm compared to RA(Ring)-->Ind in patients with RA bipolar leads?
Absolute Event Rate: 96.8% vs 91%
The RA(Ring)-->Can sensing configuration provides larger atrial evoked response amplitudes and higher success rates for automatic capture verification compared to RA(Ring)-->Ind, supporting its feasibility for independent pacing/sensing.
Sperzel et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Patients with right atrial bipolar leads (n=38). RA(Ring)-->Can sensing configuration vs. RA(Ring)-->Ind sensing configuration was evaluated on Successful measurement of pacing threshold (within 0.2 V of manual unipolar threshold). The RA(Ring)-->Can sensing configuration successfully measured pacing thresholds in 96.8% of tests compared to 91.0% for RA(Ring)-->Ind, and yielded larger minimum atrial evoked response amplitudes (P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: