Premium
Is Epicardial Dual Chamber Pacing a Realistic Alternative to Endocardial DDD Pacing? Initial Results of a Prospective Study
Author(s) -
ESPERER HANSDIETER,
MAHMOUD FAHIDI O.,
EMDE JÜRGEN
Publication year - 1992
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1992.tb03059.x
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiology , ventricular pacing , lead (geology) , stimulation , cardiac pacing , heart failure , geomorphology , geology
Seventeen patients, in whom an epicardial (n = 7) or a transvenous DDDM pacemaker system had been implanted between June 1988 and October 1990, were followed up for pacemaker and lead related complications, pacemaker longevity, and electrophysiological lead parameters. The mean follow‐up interval was 18 ± 12 months, maximum 34 months. There were no differences in chronic arrial and ventricular sensing thresholds between epicardial and endocardial stimulation, nor were there any differences concerning lead related complications between the two pacing modalities. However, atrial as well as ventricular chronic stimulation thresholds were significantly higher with epicardial stimulation resulting in a twofold increase in atrial energy consumption and a threefold increase in the ventricular energy consumption. Thus, in one patient with an epicardial DDD system, the pacemaker had to be replaced prematurely because of battery depletion. It is concluded that epicardial DDD stimulation can be reliably performed as far as atrial and ventricular sensing is concerned, but that the energy requirements of available myocardial leads are not satisfactory for making optimal use of modern pacemaker capability.