Address for reprints: Hung-Fat Tse, M.D., Ph.D., Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. Fax: 852-2855-1143; e-mail: [email protected]

Read the full text

About

PDF

Tools

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Background: Automatic pacing capture verification algorithms that are based on detection of local evoked response signals are susceptible to interference from myopotential noise. This is especially true in the atrium where the lower signal amplitude and signal-to-noise ratio make pacing capture verification more challenging. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of myopotential noise induced by various maneuvers on the atrial evoked response (AER) signal.

Methods: Data were collected from 18 patients (7 M/11 F, 77.6 ± 8.8 years), implanted with a dual chamber rate response (DDDR) pacemaker and acute and chronic right atrial leads and right ventricular leads, at three regular follow-up visits scheduled at 1, 3, and 6 months after pacemaker implantation or replacement procedures. During each study visit, manual atrial pacing threshold tests during unipolar pacing in the DDD mode were conducted with two evoked response sensing configurations (RA_Ring→ Ind and RA_Ring→ V_Tip) while patients performed six different maneuvers. Noise estimates were calculated for each maneuver.

Results: The greatest noise estimates in both sensing configurations were measured during the hand-pressing exercise (0.649 ± 0.342 mV in the RA_Ring→ Ind vector, 0.309 ± 0.223 mV in the RA_Ring→ V_Tip vector). No significant differences in overall noise estimates were observed between the follow-up visits. Of the beats that exhibited noise estimates greater than a sensing floor of 0.3 mV, up to 22% of cardiac beats had a signal-to-noise ratio less than 2 in the RA_Ring→ Ind configuration.

Conclusions: Results indicate that myopotential noise generated by performing maneuvers has a demonstrable impact on AER sensing. Therefore, noise mitigation processes are necessary in atrial automatic pacing capture verification algorithms based on evoked response signals to identify and appropriately manage noise. (PACE 2011; 34:460–466)

References

1 Butter C, Hartung WM, Kay GN, Willems R, Zhang G, Lang D, Fleck E. Clinical validation of new pacing-sensing configurations for atrial automatic capture verification in pacemakers. J Cardiovascular Electrophysiology 2001; 12: 1104–1108.
10.1046/j.1540-8167.2001.01104.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 Boriani G, Biffi M, Branzi A, Mininno A, Sigliano R. Benefits in projected pacemaker longevity and in pacing related costs conferred by automatic threshold tracking. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2000; 23: 1783–1787.
10.1111/j.1540-8159.2000.tb07018.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Biffi M, Bertini M, Saporito D, Ziacchi M, Martignani C, Diemberger I, Boriani G. Actual pacemaker longevity: The benefit of stimulation by automatic capture verification. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2010; 33: 873–881.
10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.02724.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Boriani G, Rusconi L, Biffi M, Pavia L, Sassara M, Malfitano D, Bongiorni MG, et al. Role of ventricular Autocapture function in increasing longevity of DDDR pacemakers: A prospective study. Europace 2006; 8: 216–220.
10.1093/europace/euj027
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Rosenthal L, Mester S, Rakovec P, Penaranda J, Sherman J, Sheldon T, Zeng C, et al. Factors influencing pacemaker generator longevity: Results from the Complete Automatic Pacing Threshold Utilization Recorded in the CAPTURE Trial. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2010; 33: 1020–1030
10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.02809.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Brockes C, Rahn-Schönbeck M, Duru F, Candinas R, Turina M. Impact of automatic adjustment of stimulation outputs on pacemaker longevity in a new dual-chamber pacing system. J Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology 2003; 8: 45–48.
10.1023/A:1022391931093
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Binner L, Messenger J, Sperzel J, Bondkhe H, Vandekerckhove Y, Poore J, Scheiner J, et al. Autocapture enhancements: Unipolar and bipolar lead compatibility and bipolar pacing capability on bipolar leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2003; 26: 221–224.
10.1046/j.1460-9592.2003.00020.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Sperzel J, Kennergren C, Biffi M, Smith M, Knops M, Gill J, Boland J. Clinical performance of a ventricular automatic capture verification algorithm. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2005; 28: 933–937.
10.1111/j.1540-8159.2005.00196.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Koplan, B, Gilligan D, Nguyen L, Lau T, Thackeray L, Berg K. A randomized trial of the effect of automated ventricular capture on device longevity and threshold measurement in pacemaker patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2008; 31: 1467–1474.
10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.01211.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Danilovic D, Ohm O. Pacing threshold trends and variability in modern tined leads assessed using high resolution automatic measurements: Conversion of pulse width into voltage thresholds. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1999; 22(Pt. I): 567–587.
10.1111/j.1540-8159.1999.tb00498.x
Google Scholar
11 Biffi M, Spitali G, Silvetti M, Argnani S, Rubino I, Fontana P, Barbato G, et al. Atrial threshold variability: Implications for automatic atrial stimulation algorithms. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2007; 30: 1445–1454.
10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00890.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Sperzel J, Milasinovic G, Smith T, Mead H, Brandt J, Haisty W, Bailey J, et al. Automatic measurement of atrial pacing thresholds in dual-chamber pacemakers: Clinical experience with atrial capture management. Heart Rhythm 2005; 2: 1203–1210.
10.1016/j.hrthm.2005.07.023
Google Scholar
13 Clarke M, Liu B, Schuller H, Binner L, Kennergren C, Guerola M, Weinmann P, et al. Automatic adjustment of pacemaker stimulation output correlated with continuously monitored capture thresholds: A multicenter study. European Microny Study Group. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1998; 21: 1567–1575.
10.1111/j.1540-8159.1998.tb00244.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Secemsky SI, Hauser RG, Denes P, Edwards LM. Unipolar sensing abnormalities: Incidence and clinical significance of skeletal muscle interference and undersensing in 228 patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1982; 5: 10–19.
10.1111/j.1540-8159.1982.tb02185.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Sperzel J, Snell J, Scheiner J, Binner L. Evaluation of automatic capture detection using the atrial evoked response integral with and without upper body isometric exertion. (abstract) Europace 2005; 7: 40.
Google Scholar
16 Jones BR, Kim J, Zhu Q, Nelson J, KenKnight B, Lang D, Warren J. Future of bradyarrhythmia therapy systems: Automaticity. Am J Cardiology 1999; 83: 192D–201D.
10.1016/S0002-9149(98)01023-6
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume34, Issue4

April 2011

Pages 460-466

Muscle Noise Effects on Atrial Evoked Response Sensing: Implications on Atrial Auto-Threshold and Auto-Capture Determination

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Muscle Noise Effects on Atrial Evoked Response Sensing: Implications on Atrial Auto-Threshold and Auto-Capture Determination

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information