Premium
The Utility of Pacemaker Evoked T Wave Amplitude for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Cardiac Allograft Rejection
Author(s) -
BAINBRIDGE A.D.,
CAVE M.,
NEWELL S.,
DELANEY M.,
PARAMESHWAR J.,
LARGE S.R.,
WALLWORK J.,
GRACE A.A.,
CAREY N.R.,
SCHOFIELD P.M.
Publication year - 1999
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.1540-8159.1999.tb06819.x
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiac pacemaker , cardiology
Previous work suggested that pacemaker evoked T wave amplitude (ETWA) may be a sensitive noninvasive marker of cardiac allograft rejection. A Topaz QT sensing rate responsive pacemaker (Vitatron Medical) was implanted at transplantation using epicardial ventricular leads in 45 recipients (35 males; median age 51 years, range 20‐63). The median duration of followup was 129 days (range 4‐327). The ETWA at a paced rate of 100 beats/min was measured daily during hospitalization and at each outpatient attendance (900 readings). Endomyocardial biopsies were at routine intervals or when otherwise clinically indicated (257 biopsies with concurrent ETWA data). There were 58 episodes of rejection ≥ grade 3a in 28 patients. The biopsies were classed as either no rejection (grade < 3a) or rejection requiring treatment (grade ≥ 3a). The median normalized ETWA was 100.8% (range 24.6‐239.7) without rejection and 89.9% (17.0 ‐189.7) with rejection (Mann‐Whitney U Test: P = 0.028). The performance of ETWA monitoring as a diagnostic test for the individual recipient was evaluated with exponentially weighted moving average quality control charts. For the diagnosis of all rejection episodes, ETWA monitoring had a sensitivity of 55%, a specificity of 62%, a positive predictive value of 30%, and negative predictive value of 83%, It is concluded that although analysis of pooled data showed a significant reduction in normalized ETWA with biopsy proven rejection, ETWA monitoring requires further refinement to improve sensitivity before it can be considered a clinically useful technique for the noninvasive diagnosis of cardiac allograft rejection in individual recipients.