Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Permanent Pacing (permanent + pacing)
Selected AbstractsValidation of Criteria for Selective His Bundle and Para-Hisian Permanent PacingPACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 12 2006F. CANTÙ M.D. Background: His Bundle (HB) pacing is a valid alternative to right ventricular pacing for patients with preserved His-ventricle conduction who are candidates for permanent stimulation. Permanent pacing in the HB area enables Selective HB pacing (SHBP) or para-Hisian pacing (PHP) to be achieved. The aim of our study was to draw up a set of easy criteria to differentiate and validate the two kinds of stimulations according to the pacing output and the ECG/EKG signals. Methods and Results: From February to July 2005, 17 patients eligible for a pacemaker (PM) procedure underwent implantation with the Medtronic SelectSecure® lead (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) screwed into the HB area.SHBP was defined when the intrinsic QRS was equal, in both duration and morphology, to the paced QRS, the His-Ventricular (H-V) interval was equal to Pace-Ventricular interval (Vp-V) and, at low output, only the HB was captured, while increasing the output resulted in both the HB and right ventricular (RV) being captured (widening of QRS at high output). Conversely, PHP was defined when the intrinsic QRS differed from the paced one, either in morphology or in duration and, at high output, both the RV and HB were captured (non-SHBP), while decreasing the output resulted in losing HB capture (widening of QRS at low output). According to these criteria, SHBP was achieved in 11 patients, while in the remaining 6, PHP was obtained. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions: The above criteria enabled SHBP and PHP to be validated easily and clearly. A longer follow-up will be needed in order to ascertain whether the clinical outcome of these two approaches differs. [source] Risk Factors for Requirement of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Aortic Valve ReplacementJOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY, Issue 3 2006Hasan Basri Erdogan M.D. Methods: Among 465 patients operated between 1994 and 2004, 19(4.1%) patients with a mean age 49.9 ± 17.2 years required the implantation of a permanent pacemaker. Eleven of them were female (57.9%). The main indication was aortic stenosis (89.5%). Severe annular calcification was documented in 78.9% of them, and the aortic valve was bicuspid in 57.9%. Results: Risk factors for permanent pacing after aortic valve replacement (AVR) identified by univariate analysis were female sex, hypertension, preoperative ejection fraction, aortic stenosis, annular calcification, bicuspid aorta, presence of right bundle branch block (RBBB) or left bundle branch block (LBBB), prolonged aortic cross-clamp and perfusion times, and preoperative use of calcium channel blockers. Multivariate analysis showed that female sex (p = 0.01, OR; 5.21, 95% CI: 1.48-18.34), annular calcification (p < 0.001, OR; 0.05, 95% CI: 0.01-0.24), bicuspid aortic valve (p = 0.02, OR; 0.24, 95% CI: 0.07-0.84), presence of RBBB (p = 0.009, OR; 0.03, 95% CI: 0.003-0.44) or LBBB (p = 0.01, OR; 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-0.69), hypertension (p = 0.03, OR; 0.22, 95%CI: 0.05-0.89), and total perfusion time (p = 0.002, OR; 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.08) were associated risk factors. Conclusion: Irreversible atrioventricular block requiring a permanent pacemaker implantation is an uncommon complication after AVR. Risk factors are annular calcification, bicuspid aorta, female sex, presence of RBBB or LBBB, prolonged total perfusion time, and hypertension. [source] Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients with AV Block (BLOCK HF): Clinical Study Design and RationaleJOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 9 2007ANNE B. CURTIS M.D. Background: Right ventricular (RV) pacing restores ventricular systole in patients with atrioventricular (AV) block, yet recent studies have suggested that in patients with AV block and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, RV pacing may exacerbate the progression to heart failure (HF). BLOCK HF is a prospective, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial designed to determine whether patients with AV block, LV dysfunction (EF , 50%), and mild to moderate HF (NYHA I-III) who require pacing benefit from biventricular (BiV) pacing, compared with RV pacing alone. Objective: The primary objective of this trial is to determine whether the time to first event (all-cause mortality, heart failure-related urgent care, or a , 15% increase in left ventricular end systolic volume index [LVESVI]) for patients with BiV pacing is superior to that of patients with RV pacing. Methods: Patients with AV block and LV dysfunction who require permanent pacing and undergo successful implantation of a commercial Medtronic CRT device, with or without an ICD, will be randomized to BiV or RV pacing. Patients are followed at least every 6 months until study closure. Up to 1,636 patients may be enrolled in 150 centers worldwide. Conclusion: BLOCK HF is a large, randomized, clinical study in pacing-indicated patients with AV block, mild to moderate HF symptoms, and LV dysfunction to determine whether BiV pacing is superior to RV pacing in slowing the progression of HF. [source] Reduction of RV Pacing by Continuous Optimization of the AV IntervalPACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 4 2006GORAN MILASINOVIC Background: In patients requiring permanent pacing, preservation of intrinsic ventricular activation is preferred whenever possible. The Search AV+ (SAV+) algorithm in Medtronic EnPulseÔ dual-chamber pacemakers can increase atrioventricular (AV) intervals to 320 ms in patients with intact or intermittent AV conduction. This prospective, multicenter study compared the percentage of ventricular pacing with and without AV interval extension. Methods: Among 197 patients enrolled in the study, the percentage of ventricular-paced beats was evaluated via device diagnostics at the 1-month follow-up. Patient cohorts were defined by clinician assessment of conduction via a 1:1 AV conduction test at the 2-week follow-up. The observed percentage of ventricular pacing with SAV + ON and the predicted percentage of ventricular pacing with SAV + OFF were determined from the SAV + histogram data for the period between the 2-week and 1-month follow-up visits. Results: Of 197 patients, 110 (55.8%) had intact 1:1 AV conduction, of which 109 had 1-month data. SAV + remained ON in 99/109 patients; 10 patients had intrinsic A-V conduction intervals beyond SAV + nominal and therefore SAV + disabled. The mean percentage of ventricular pacing in the 109 patients was SAV+ ON = 23.1% (median 3.7%) versus SAV + OFF = 97.2% (median 99.7%). In 87 patients without 1:1 AV conduction, SAV + was programmed OFF in 6, automatically disabled in 52, and remained ON in 29. In 8 of these patients, 80,100% reduction in ventricular pacing was observed with SAV + ON. Conclusion: The Search AV+ algorithm in the EnPulse pacemaker effectively promotes intrinsic ventricular activation and substantially reduces unnecessary ventricular pacing. [source] Contribution of a Pacemaker Bradycardia Detection Algorithm in the Study of Patients with Carotid Sinus SyndromePACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 6 2001PIERRE GRAUX GRAUX, P., et al.: Contribution of a Pacemaker Bradycardia Detection Algorithm in the Study of Patients with Carotid Sinus Syndrome. While carotid sinus syndrome (CSS) is often suspected as a cause of syncope in the elderly, whether it represents an indication for cardiac pacing may remain uncertain. Bradycardia algorithms included in pacemakers are now able to establish a precise relationship between spontaneous asystole and occurrence of symptoms and strengthen the indication for permanent pacing. This study included seven men and three women (70.5 ± 7.3 years of age) who, over an average period of 54.1 ± 17 months, had suffered from syncope (12.6 episodes/patient) and presyncope (11.2 episodes/patient) attributed to pure cardioinhibition (2 patients) or mixed CSS (8 patients). Other sources of symptoms were excluded by thorough clinical evaluations, including Holter monitoring, echocardiography, and electrophysiological testing. All patients received a CHORUS 6234 pacemaker, the memory of which includes a dedicated bradycardia detection algorithm capable of storing atrial and ventricular chains, and date and time of the last ten pauses and/or bradycardic events. After a initial period of 14.7 ± 8 months, during which symptoms were suppressed, the bradycardia algorithm was activated. From then on, a cumulative increase in the number of patients presenting with diurnal pauses was measured (1 month, n = 0; 3 months, n = 6; 9 months, n = 7; 2 years, n = 8). Fourteen episodes of diurnal asystole were recorded. The mean duration of the longest episodes of spontaneous ventricular standstill was 6,319 ± 1,615 ms and was due to sinoatrial block (n = 7), atrioventricular block (n = 5), and a combination of both (n = 2). In conclusion, activation of the CHORUS bradycardia algorithm allowed confirmation of the appropriateness of permanent pacing in a majority of patients suffering from CSS. [source] Short communication: Is intrapartum temporary pacing required for women with complete atrioventricular block?BJOG : AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, Issue 5 2006An analysis of seven cases Women with complete atrioventricular heart block without a permanent pacemaker normally receive temporary pacing for labour and birth. Here, we report seven women who were managed without pacing. All women had a temporary pacing lead inserted prior to induction of labour, but none of the women required pacing during labour or birth. Our experience suggests that women with complete atrioventricular block and without permanent pacing do not routinely require temporary pacing for labour and birth. [source] | ||||||||||