Chinese medical journal · 2017
Feasibility of Atrial AutoCapture™ to Detect Atrial Evoked Response: Experience from 102 Patients Implanted with Dual-chamber Pacemakers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Si Hai-Long, Qin Qin, Zhao Bing-Rang, Chen Gang, Lu Ya-Ru, Kou Lu, Yang Jing-Yu, Lin Wen-Hua, Ren Zi-Wen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Atrial AutoCapture™ (ACap™) was a new technological development that confirmed atrial capture by analyzing evoked response (ER) with a new method - paced depolarization integral ER detection - and optimized energy output to changes in the stimulation threshold. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of ACap™ function.
METHODS: This was a prospective, observational, nonrandomized two-center study. Between November 2008 and August 2014, 102 patients were enrolled from two different institutions. Data were collected by case report forms at enrollment, hospital discharge, and in-office follow-ups scheduled at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months postimplantation.
RESULTS: Ambulatory ACap™ function started to become available for 20.6% of patients at 1 day, then progressed to 30.4% at 7 days, 38.6% at 1 month, 41.6% at 2 months, 47.5% at 3 months, 53.5% at 6 months, and 63.4% at 1 year. The cause of the unsuccessful attempts to perform ACap™ threshold was ER/polarization <2:1. Availability for SD, BND, and HOCM indications had shown better results than AVB indication. For SD indication cases, feasibility was significantly better for SD with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF) than SD without pAF (78.4% vs. 35.0% at 1 year, n = 71, P< 0.001). At each stage of the clinical follow-ups, there had been a strict correlation between ACap™ measurements and those conducted manually with P 0.001 (n = 299).
CONCLUSIONS: It has been concluded that ACap™ function was safe and effective to confirm atrial threshold and reduce energy output automatically. ACap™ function is unavailable for some patients at early stages of the implantation; however, availability has been progressively increasing during follow-up.
METHODS: This was a prospective, observational, nonrandomized two-center study. Between November 2008 and August 2014, 102 patients were enrolled from two different institutions. Data were collected by case report forms at enrollment, hospital discharge, and in-office follow-ups scheduled at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months postimplantation.
RESULTS: Ambulatory ACap™ function started to become available for 20.6% of patients at 1 day, then progressed to 30.4% at 7 days, 38.6% at 1 month, 41.6% at 2 months, 47.5% at 3 months, 53.5% at 6 months, and 63.4% at 1 year. The cause of the unsuccessful attempts to perform ACap™ threshold was ER/polarization <2:1. Availability for SD, BND, and HOCM indications had shown better results than AVB indication. For SD indication cases, feasibility was significantly better for SD with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF) than SD without pAF (78.4% vs. 35.0% at 1 year, n = 71, P< 0.001). At each stage of the clinical follow-ups, there had been a strict correlation between ACap™ measurements and those conducted manually with P 0.001 (n = 299).
CONCLUSIONS: It has been concluded that ACap™ function was safe and effective to confirm atrial threshold and reduce energy output automatically. ACap™ function is unavailable for some patients at early stages of the implantation; however, availability has been progressively increasing during follow-up.