JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 1985; 6:1338-1341
© 1985 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Klementowicz, P.
Right arrow Articles by Furman, S
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Klementowicz, P.
Right arrow Articles by Furman, S

Stability of atrial sensing and pacing after dual chamber pulse generator implantation

PT Klementowicz and S Furman

The continued efficacy of dual chamber pacing is predicated on the stability of both atrial and ventricular electrodes. The introduction of the tined atrial J lead has decreased the incidence of atrial lead dislodgment, allowing for continued effective sensing and pacing. To study the evolution of atrial pacing and sensing threshold, 54 patients with identical pulse generators and atrial electrodes were evaluated for 58 +/- 29 weeks (mean +/- SD). Immediately after pacemaker implantation in 39 patients, the amplitude of the atrial signal was measured by programming the pulse generator to the lowest sensitivity that assured pacing in the atrial synchronous mode. Three levels of atrial sensing were possible: high (0.5 mV), intermediate (1.3 mV) and low (2.5 mV) sensitivity. Three patients had a high, 16 patients had a medium and 20 patients had a low atrial sensitivity. The P wave amplitude and slew rate measured on a physiologic recorder did not differ significantly between the latter two groups. The atrial charge threshold increased from 1.8 +/- 1.3 microcoulombs (microC) to a maximal value of 2.5 +/- 1.3 microC, 3 days to 1 week after implantation (p = 0.02). This remained elevated for 1 to 3 months (p = 0.05) and then decreased, remaining stable over the ensuing year. The atrial sensitivity for the group with noninvasive measurement did not change significantly, although there was considerable patient variation. For 54% of the patients, atrial sensing remained stable or improved. In 26% of the patients, further programming to higher sensitivity settings ws required. In the remaining 20% of the patients, the atrial sensitivity setting fluctuated.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)





HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 1985 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.