Key result
External pacing threshold shows no difference across electrode positions if anterior polarity remains negative.
Why the study?
The optimal electrode position and polarity for effective external cardiac pacing were not well established.
Pacing thresholds similar across tested positions in normals; leaves open optimal electrode placement for emergency use in patients.
External cardiac pacing is a recently reintroduced, effective method for emergency cardiac stimulation. The optimal electrode position and polarity for external pacing were determined in two groups of normal subjects. In six subjects there was no significant difference in pacing threshold when electrodes were positioned as follows: negative electrode in left parasternal region, positive electrode in right subscapular region; negative electrode in left parasternal region, positive electrode in left subscapular region; or negative electrode at cardiac apex, positive electrode in right parasternal region. In the remaining ten patients, pacing attempts were ineffective when electrode polarity was reversed. We conclude that exact electrode positioning is not crucial for external cardiac pacing, as long as the anterior or apical electrode is negative.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Falk et al. (1986) studied normal subjects (n=16). External cardiac pacing (electrode positioning and polarity) vs. Reversed electrode polarity and different positions was evaluated on Pacing threshold and effectiveness. External cardiac pacing thresholds did not significantly differ among various electrode positions as long as the anterior or apical electrode was negative, while reversed polarity was ineffective.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: