Multicenter clinical experience with an atrial lead designed to minimize far-field R-wave 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 condu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Europace (London, England) England), 2009-05, Vol.11 (5), p.618-624
Main Authors: Fung, Jeffrey W.H., Sperzel, Johannes, Yu, Cheuk Man, Chan, Joseph Y.S., Gelder, Robert N., Yang, Michael X., Rooke, Ryan, Boileau, Peter, Fröhlig, Gerd
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Atrial Fibrillation - physiopathology
Atrial Fibrillation - therapy
Electrocardiography
Electrocardiography, Ambulatory
Equipment Design
Female
Foreign-Body Migration
Heart Atria - physiopathology
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Pacemaker, Artificial - adverse effects
Sensitivity and Specificity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Request full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:1099-5129
1532-2092
DOI:10.1093/europace/eup078