Key result
Atrial lead implantation during AF links to ~39% lower initial peak potentials but similar chronic sensing.
Why the study?
Does atrial lead implantation during ongoing atrial flutter or fibrillation using electrogram mapping provide comparable sensing and pacing thresholds to implantation during sinus rhythm in patients with sick sinus syndrome?
Population
59 patients with sick sinus syndrome and a history of atrial flutter or fibrillation receiving a…
Comparison
Atrial lead implantation during an ongoing… vs Atrial lead implantation during sinus rhythm.
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
15.1 +/- 9.8 months
Authors
Loading...
May support AF implantation with mapping in sick sinus syndrome; leaves open randomized confirmation of equivalence.
Cohort (n=59)
Does atrial lead implantation during ongoing atrial flutter or fibrillation using electrogram mapping provide comparable sensing and pacing thresholds to implantation during sinus rhythm in patients with sick sinus syndrome?
p-value: p=<0.001
Atrial lead implantation during ongoing atrial flutter or fibrillation using electrogram mapping is feasible and yields comparable chronic sensing and pacing thresholds to implantation during sinus rhythm.
Kindermann et al. (1998) conducted a cohort in Sick sinus syndrome with unexpected atrial flutter or fibrillation (n=59). Atrial lead implantation during atrial flutter or fibrillation with electrogram mapping vs. Atrial lead implantation during sinus rhythm was evaluated on Atrial peak-to-peak potential (APEAK) after final lead placement (p=<0.001). Atrial lead implantation during atrial fibrillation resulted in lower initial peak potentials than during sinus rhythm (2.5 mV vs 4.1 mV, P<0.001), but chronic sensing thresholds were similar.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: