Key result
OptiSense atrial lead eliminates far-field sensing and cuts inappropriate mode switching ~83% vs conventional leads.
Why the study?
Far-field ventricular sensing by atrial leads can cause inappropriate mode switching, and a lead designed to minimize this sensing needed evaluation.
Does the OptiSense 1699T atrial lead reduce far-field R-wave sensing and inappropriate mode switches compared to conventional pacing leads in patients with standard pacing indications?
RCT (n=63)
randomized
Yes
Does the OptiSense 1699T atrial lead reduce far-field R-wave sensing and inappropriate mode switches compared to conventional pacing leads in patients with standard pacing indications?
The OptiSense atrial lead significantly reduces far-field R-wave sensing and inappropriate mode switching compared to conventional leads while maintaining acceptable electrical parameters.
Supports OptiSense lead use to curb inappropriate mode switching in paced patients; extends RCT data on optimized atrial sensing.
AIMS: To evaluate a novel atrial lead designed to reduce far-field sensing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-three patients with standard pacing indications were randomized to receive an OptiSense 1699T (St Jude Medical, USA) or conventional pacing lead in the right atrium. Post-implant follow-up was conducted for all patients at 90 days and for a subset at 360 days. Standard electrical parameters were measured. Thresholds of sensing were determined for far-field ventricular signals. The number of inappropriate mode switches was determined from the stored intracardiac electrogram (IEGM). At 90 days, an IEGM Holter recorded 24 h of IEGM. With atrial sensitivity programmed at 0.3 mV, no far-field sensing occurred in the OptiSense group, but it did occur in 20% and 30% of the control group at 90 and 360 days, respectively. Inappropriate mode switching was observed in 4% of the OptiSense group in contrast to 23% of the control group. The IEGM Holter found no far-field sensing in the OptiSense group, but did find 83 023 far-field events from 22% of control patients. The standard electrical parameters of the OptiSense leads were acceptable. CONCLUSION: The OptiSense lead reduced ventricular far-field sensing in the atrium while maintaining satisfactory pacing and sensing performance, resulting in less inappropriate mode switch.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fung et al. (2009) conducted an RCT in standard pacing indications (n=63). OptiSense 1699T atrial lead vs. conventional pacing lead was evaluated on far-field sensing at 90 days. The OptiSense atrial lead eliminated far-field sensing at 90 days (0% vs 20%) and reduced inappropriate mode switching (4% vs 23%) compared to a conventional pacing lead.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: