Key result
Atrial lead placement during AF is linked to ~14 minutes shorter implantation with similar 12-month sensing.
Why the study?
Does atrial lead placement during atrial fibrillation provide comparable 12-month sensing and pacing properties compared to placement after restoration of sinus rhythm in patients receiving pacemakers?
Cohort (n=64)
Does atrial lead placement during atrial fibrillation provide comparable 12-month sensing and pacing properties compared to placement after restoration of sinus rhythm in patients receiving pacemakers?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.74% vs 1.78%
p-value: p=0.98
Atrial lead placement during atrial fibrillation is feasible, reduces implantation time, and yields comparable 12-month sensing and pacing thresholds to placement in sinus rhythm, provided bipolar leads and high atrial sensitivities are used.
Unexpected atrial fibrillation (AF) during implantation of an atrial pacemaker lead is sometimes encountered. Intraoperative cardioversion may lengthen and complicate the implantation process. This study prospectively investigates the performance of atrial leads implanted during AF (group A) and compares atrial sensing and pacing properties to an age- and sex-matched control group in which sinus rhythm had been restored before atrial lead placement (group B). Patient groups consisted of 32 patients each. All patients received DDDR pacemakers and bipolar, steroid-eluting, active fixation atrial leads. In patients with AF at the time of implantation (group A), a minimal intracardiac fibrillatory amplitude of at least 1.0 mV was required for acceptable atrial lead placement. In patients with restored sinus rhythm (group B), a voltage threshold < 1.5 V at 0.5 ms and a minimal atrial potential amplitude > 1.5 mV was required. Patients of group A in whom spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm did not occur within 4 weeks after implantation underwent electrical cardioversion to sinus rhythm. Pacemaker interrogations were performed 3, 6, and 12 months after implantation. In group A, implantation time was significantly shorter as compared to group B (58.7 +/- 8.6 minutes vs 73.0 +/- 17.3 minutes, P < 0.001). Mean atrial potential amplitude during AF was correlated with the telemetered atrial potential during sinus rhythm (r = 0.49, P < 0.001), but not with the atrial stimulation threshold. Twelve months after implantation, sensing thresholds (1.74 +/- 0.52 mV vs 1.78 +/- 0.69 mV, P = 0.98) and stimulation thresholds (1.09 +/- 0.42 V vs 1.01 +/- 0.31 V, P = 0.66) did not differ between groups A and B. However, in three patients of group A, chronic atrial sensing threshold was < or = 1 mV requiring atrial sensitivities of at least 0.35 mV to achieve reliable atrial sensing. Atrial lead placement during AF is feasible and reduces implantation time. However, bipolar atrial leads and the option to program high atrial sensitivities are required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wiegand et al. (2000) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation during pacemaker implantation (n=64). Atrial lead placement during atrial fibrillation vs. Atrial lead placement after restoration of sinus rhythm was evaluated on Sensing thresholds at 12 months (mV) (p=0.98). Atrial lead placement during atrial fibrillation reduced implantation time (58.7 vs 73.0 min, P<0.001) with similar 12-month sensing thresholds (1.74 vs 1.78 mV, P=0.98) compared to sinus rhythm.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: