Pacing with capture verification in candidates for resynchronisation therapy: A feasibility study
Key result
Autocapture during biventricular pacing yielded evoked response amplitudes that were not significantly decreased compared to VVI pacing (16.36 vs 17.09 mV in RV; 12.4 vs 12.25 mV in LV).
Why the study?
Does Autocapture during biventricular pacing reliably detect evoked responses compared to single ventricular pacing in candidates for resynchronisation therapy?
Population
Candidates for cardiac resynchronisation therapy undergoing implantation of biventricular devices. Includes…
Comparison
Biventricular pacing with Autocapture applied to… vs Single ventricular pacing in VVI mode.
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
20+/-8 months
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Comparable amplitudes support autocapture feasibility in BiV pacing; leaves open whether this extends CRT device longevity in randomized trials.
Structured PICO
Does Autocapture during biventricular pacing reliably detect evoked responses compared to single ventricular pacing in candidates for resynchronisation therapy?
P
Population
Candidates for cardiac resynchronisation therapy undergoing biventricular device implantation, with long-term Autocapture performance assessed in a subset over 20 months.
I
Intervention
Biventricular pacing with Autocapture (capture verification) applied to the ventricular channel paced secondly.
C
Comparator
Single ventricular pacing in VVI mode (right ventricular or left ventricular pacing).
O
Outcome
Evoked response (ER) amplitude detection and measurement.surrogate
Capture verification during biventricular pacing on the secondly paced ventricular channel is feasible and could safely increase the longevity of cardiac resynchronisation therapy devices.
Cite This Study
Biffi et al. (2005) studied Heart failure / Candidates for resynchronisation therapy. Autocapture during biventricular pacing vs. Single-chamber pacing in VVI mode was evaluated on Evoked response (ER) amplitude. Autocapture during biventricular pacing yielded evoked response amplitudes that were not significantly decreased compared to VVI pacing (16.36 vs 17.09 mV in RV; 12.4 vs 12.25 mV in LV).