Survey of ST-Segment Changes due to Active Lead Fixation during Permanent Pacemaker Device Implantation as a Prognostic Indicator of its Performance

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Cardiology, School of Medicine, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran

2 Intern, School of Medicine, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran

Abstract

Background: Active lead implantation can create injury in myocardium that may be associated with a ST-segment elevation. This ST-segment elevation may be correlated with changes in other parameters such as threshold, sense, amplitude, impedance, and sensitivity. But, the relationship between the numerical elevating of ST-segment with permanent pacemaker device performance is not clear.Methods: In this prospective cohort study, census sampling method was used to enroll 83 patients referred to Bou Ali Sina hospital, Qazvin, Iran, for permanent pacemaker device implantation during December 2010 to May 2012. The procedure was conducted by an electrophisiologist. Data such as ST-segment elevation and device parameters (threshold, sense, and impedance) were collected via recording during active implantation of device and analyzed using SPSS software.Findings: Patients' mean age was 71.7 ± 1.4 years; 48.1% were men and 51.8% were women. Single chamber device was implanted for 25 cases and dual chamber device for 58 others. The mean ST-segment elevation was 3.95 ± 1.27 and 16.71 ± 3.41 mv in atrial and ventricular leads, respectively. The changes in other parameters separately in the atrial and ventricular leads were obtained and compared considering ST-segment changes. ST changes in the right atrium were correlated with sense and threshold (P = 0.003).Conclusion: Since we could not find significant correlation between pacemaker parameters and ST elevation, it can be concluded that ST elevation during lead implantation is not a predictor for device performance.

Keywords

References

  1. Moses HW, Mullin JC. A practical guide to cardiac pacing. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2007.
  2. Kenny T. The nuts and bolts of cardiac pacing. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2008.
  3. Ellenbogen KA, Wood MA. Cardiac pacing and ICDs. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2008.
  4. Barold SS, Stroobandt RX, Sinnaeve AF. Cardiac pacemakers and resynchronization step by step: An illustrated guide. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2010.
  5. Saxonhouse SJ, Conti JB, Curtis AB. Current of injury predicts adequate active lead fixation in permanent pacemaker/defibrillation leads. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45(3): 412-7.
  6. Redfearn DP, Gula LJ, Krahn AD, Skanes AC, Klein GJ, Yee R. Current of injury predicts acute performance of catheter-delivered active fixation pacing leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2007; 30(12): 1438-44.
  7. Chauhan A, Grace AA, Newell SA, Stone DL, Shapiro LM, Schofield PM, et al. Early complications after dual chamber versus single chamber pacemaker implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1994; 17(11 Pt 2): 2012-5.
  8. Cheng A, Wang Y, Curtis JP, Varosy PD. Acute lead dislodgements and in-hospital mortality in patients enrolled in the national cardiovascular data registry implantable cardioverter defibrillator registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56(20): 1651-6.
  9. Grossi EA. Direct-current injury from external pacemaker results in tissue electrolysis. Ann Thorac Surg 1994; 57(4): 1053.
  10. Varriale P, Niznik J. Unipolar ventricular electrogram in the diagnosis of right ventricular ischemic injury. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1978; 1(3): 335-41.
  11. DeCaprio V, Hurzeler P, Furman S. A comparison of unipolar and bipolar electrograms for cardiac pacemaker sensing. Circulation 1977; 56(5): 750-5.
  12. Myers GH, Kresh YM, Parsonnet V. Characteristics of intracardiac electrograms. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1978; 1(1): 90-103.
  13. Haghjoo M, Mollazadeh R, Aslani A, Dastmalchi J, Mashreghi-Moghadam H, Heidari-Mokarar H, et al. Prediction of midterm performance of active-fixation leads using current of injury. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2014; 37(2): 231-6.
  14. Avramovitch NA, Kim MH, Trohman RG. Time-related improvement in pacing parameters after active fixation lead implantation: insights gained from injury current analysis. Heart Rhythm 2004; 1(Supl 1): S71
  15. Parsonnet V, Bilitch M, Furman S, Fisher JD, Escher DJ, Myers G, et al. Early malfunction of transvenous pacemaker electrodes. A three-center study. Circulation 1979; 60(3): 590-6.
  16. Oswald H, Husemann B, Gardiwal A, Lissel C, Pichlmaier MA, Luesebrink U, et al. Morphology of current of injury does not predict long term active fixation ICD lead performance. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J 2009; 9(2): 81-90.
  17. Shali S, Wushou A, Liu E, Jia L, Yao R, Su Y, et al. Time course of current of injury is related to acute stability of active-fixation pacing leads in rabbits. PLoS One 2013; 8(3): e57727.
  18. Shandling AH, Castellanet MJ, Thomas LA, Messenger JC. The influence of endocardial electrode fixation status on acute and chronic atrial stimulation threshold and atrial endocardial electrogram amplitude. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1990; 13(9): 1116-22.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 35, Issue 428 - Serial Number 428
March and April 2017
Pages 470-475

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 20 January 2017
  • Revise Date: 01 November 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics