Key result
A 10.0-mm atrial lead spacing increases FFRW sensing ~10-fold vs 1.1-mm spacing in low septal pacing.
Why the study?
Does 10.0 mm compared to 1.1 mm tip-ring electrode spacing increase far-field R-wave sensing in patients receiving dual-chamber pacemakers with low atrial septal pacing?
Population
31 recipients (mean age, 74 ± 10 years) of dual-chamber pacemakers for management of bradyarrhythmias
Comparison
10.0 mm tip-ring electrode spacing of bipolar… vs 1.1 mm tip-ring electrode spacing of bipolar…
Design
RCT, randomly assigned
Authors
Loading...
Narrow tip-ring spacing may lower FFRW sensing risk in LAS pacing, particularly with LVH; leaves open need for larger trials before routine adoption.
RCT (n=31)
Randomly assigned
No
Does 10.0 mm compared to 1.1 mm tip-ring electrode spacing increase far-field R-wave sensing in patients receiving dual-chamber pacemakers with low atrial septal pacing?
Hazard Ratio: 10.3 (95% CI 1–102.7)
p-value: p=0.047
A narrow (1.1 mm) tip-ring electrode spacing is recommended for low atrial septal pacing to reduce far-field R-wave sensing, especially in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy.
Minamiguchi et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in Bradyarrhythmias (n=31). 10.0 mm tip-ring electrode spacing of bipolar atrial leads vs. 1.1 mm tip-ring electrode spacing was evaluated on Far-field R-wave (FFRW) sensing at atrial sensitivity ≥ 0.3 mV (HR 10.3, 95% CI 1.0-102.7, p=0.047). A 10.0-mm tip-ring electrode spacing of the atrial lead significantly increased the risk of far-field R-wave sensing compared to a 1.1-mm spacing (HR 10.3) in low right atrial septum pacing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: