Key result
With a gastroesophageal electrode, atrial capture was more frequent using bipolar pacing (72.9% vs 31.0%; P<0.001), while ventricular capture was better with unipolar pacing (95.3% vs 44.2%; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does bipolar atrial pacing and unipolar ventricular pacing via a gastroesophageal electrode improve capture rates compared to alternative configurations in subjects requiring temporary pacing?
Does bipolar atrial pacing and unipolar ventricular pacing via a gastroesophageal electrode improve capture rates compared to alternative configurations in subjects requiring temporary pacing?
Absolute Event Rate: 72.9% vs 31%
p-value: p=<0.001
A novel gastroesophageal electrode achieved optimal atrial pacing using a bipolar configuration and optimal ventricular pacing using a unipolar configuration, offering a potential non-fluoroscopic alternative for emergency pacing.
Bipolar-unipolar gastroesophageal pacing may optimize capture in temporary settings; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective trials before adoption.
Temporary transvenous cardiac pacing requires technical expertise and access to fluoroscopy. We have developed a gastroesophageal electrode capable of atrial and ventricular pacing. The flexible polythene gastroesophageal electrode is passed into the stomach under light sedation. Five ring electrodes, now positioned in the lower esophagus, are used for atrial pacing. A point source (cathode) on the distal tip of the electrode, now positioned in the gastric fundus, is used for ventricular pacing. Two configurations of atrial and ventricular pacing were compared: unipolar and bipolar. During unipolar ventricular pacing the indifferent electrode (anode) was a high impedance chest pad. For bipolar ventricular pacing the indifferent electrode was a ring electrodes placed 2 cm proximal to the tip. Unipolar atrial pacing was performed with 1 of 5 proximal ring electrodes acting as cathode ("cathodic") or as anode ("anodic") in conjunction with a chest pad. Bipolar atrial pacing was performed using combinations of 2 of 5 ring electrodes. Atrial capture was obtained in all 55 subjects attempted. When all electrode combinations were compared, atrial capture was significantly more frequent using the bipolar approach (153/210 bipolar, 65/210 unipolar; t = 7.37, P < 0.001). For unipolar atrial pacing, cathodic stimulation (from esophagus) was more successful than anodic stimulation (cathodic 62/105, anodic 20/105; t = 5.81, P < 0.001). In 43 subjects attempted unipolar ventricular pacing resulted in a higher frequency of capture than the bipolar approach (unipolar 41/43 (95.3%), bipolar 19/43 (44.2%); P < 0.001). In conclusion, atrial pacing was optimal using pairs of ring electrodes ("bipolar") while ventricular pacing was optimal using the distal electrode tip (cathode) in conjunction with a chest pad electrode ("unipolar"). This gastroesophageal electrode may be useful in the emergency management of acute bradyarrhythmias and for elective electrophysiological studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McEneaney et al. (1997) studied Bradyarrhythmias (n=55). Bipolar pacing vs. Unipolar pacing was evaluated on Atrial capture frequency (p=<0.001). With a gastroesophageal electrode, atrial capture was more frequent using bipolar pacing (72.9% vs 31.0%; P<0.001), while ventricular capture was better with unipolar pacing (95.3% vs 44.2%; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: