W G de Voogt1, N M van Hemel. 1. Department of Cardiology, St Lucas Andreas Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Correct pacemaker (PM) diagnosis of paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmias is crucial for their prevention and intervention with specific atrial pacing programmes. The PM mode switch to only ventricular pacing after detection of atrial tachyarrhythmias is often used as the parameter to quantify the 'burden' of atrial tachyarrhythmias. OBJECTIVES: This review addresses potential errors in the detection and diagnosis of atrial tachyarrhythmias, sometimes resulting in incorrect mode switches. The interpretation of PM-stored data of patients with atrial tachyarrhythmias and the results of trials of pace prevention and intervention can be better appreciated with more insight into the technical options and pitfalls. RESULTS: Literature and clinical experience demonstrate that the correctness of PM-derived diagnosis of atrial tachyarrhythmias depends on 1) the sensitivity setting to detect the onset and perpetuation of atrial tachyarrhythmias frequently characterised by variable and low-voltage signals, 2) the rejection of far-field R wave sensing by the atrial sense amplifier, 3) the facility for verification of mode switches by a high-quality intracardiac registration of the nonmodified atrial electrogram. The configuration of the atrial lead also contributes to the diagnostic performance of the PM. CONCLUSION: Not only pacing algorithms and diverse technical PM features but also the atrial lead configuration are currently the limiting factors to the fully reliable, automated detection and diagnosis of atrial tachyarrhythmias. If these technical shortcomings can be improved, better signal processing will result. Then atrial pacing to prevent or suppress atrial tachyarrhythmias will be more justified. (Neth Heart J 2008;16:201-10.).
BACKGROUND: Correct pacemaker (PM) diagnosis of paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmias is crucial for their prevention and intervention with specific atrial pacing programmes. The PM mode switch to only ventricular pacing after detection of atrial tachyarrhythmias is often used as the parameter to quantify the 'burden' of atrial tachyarrhythmias. OBJECTIVES: This review addresses potential errors in the detection and diagnosis of atrial tachyarrhythmias, sometimes resulting in incorrect mode switches. The interpretation of PM-stored data of patients with atrial tachyarrhythmias and the results of trials of pace prevention and intervention can be better appreciated with more insight into the technical options and pitfalls. RESULTS: Literature and clinical experience demonstrate that the correctness of PM-derived diagnosis of atrial tachyarrhythmias depends on 1) the sensitivity setting to detect the onset and perpetuation of atrial tachyarrhythmias frequently characterised by variable and low-voltage signals, 2) the rejection of far-field R wave sensing by the atrial sense amplifier, 3) the facility for verification of mode switches by a high-quality intracardiac registration of the nonmodified atrial electrogram. The configuration of the atrial lead also contributes to the diagnostic performance of the PM. CONCLUSION: Not only pacing algorithms and diverse technical PM features but also the atrial lead configuration are currently the limiting factors to the fully reliable, automated detection and diagnosis of atrial tachyarrhythmias. If these technical shortcomings can be improved, better signal processing will result. Then atrial pacing to prevent or suppress atrial tachyarrhythmias will be more justified. (Neth Heart J 2008;16:201-10.).
Entities:
Keywords:
atrial fibrillation; atrial overdrive; far-field R wave; mode switch; pace prevention; pacemaker leads; pacing; sensing
Authors: Willem G de Voogt; Rob van Mechelen; Arjan A van den Bos; Mike Scheffer; Norbert M van Hemel; Paul A Levine Journal: Europace Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: M Haïssaguerre; D C Shah; P Jaïs; M Hocini; T Yamane; I Deisenhofer; S Garrigue; J Clémenty Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2000-11-02 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: B Nowak; S Kracker; G Rippin; G Horstick; A Vincent; S Geil; E Himmrich; J Meyer Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Mark D Carlson; John Ip; John Messenger; Scott Beau; Steven Kalbfleisch; Pierre Gervais; Douglas A Cameron; Aurelio Duran; Jesus Val-Mejias; Judith Mackall; Michael Gold Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-08-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Nikolay Shlevkov; Alexander Yang; Jan Wilko Schrickel; Joerg Otto Schwab; Helga Bielik; Lars Lickfett; Alexander Bitzen; Georg Nickenig; Berndt Lüderitz; Thorsten Lewalter Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 1.976