How reliable is atrial sensing in single-lead VDD pacing: comparison of three systems

[Atrial sensing with fixed and floating electrodes at identical activities]

Despite advantages of single-lead VDD systems, the frequency of implantation of these pacemakers in patients with symptomatic atrioventricular block and normal sinus rhythm continues to decline. Therefore, data comparing the atrial sensing performance of floating and fixed electrodes at identical activities are rare. The aim of the study was to investigate atrial sensing via floating and fixed atrial electrodes at identical activity levels (supine position, left side position, seated position, hyperventilation, standing, walking, fast walking, walking up and down stairs, for 1.5 min each) by beat-to-beat analysis in 24 h Holter ECG. A total of 42 patients were included in the study (22 patients with a DDD system; 20 patients with a VDD system). In 45% of the DDD systems and only in 20% of the VDD systems an intermittent atrial undersensing during activity was recorded (p = 0.0024). The intermittent atrial undersensing in both groups was detected significantly more often in the first 15 s of an activity (p < 0.001). Floating sensing reduced the frequency of atrial undersensing in the initial phase of the activity significantly compared to atrial sensing by a fixed electrode (p = 0.0347). This advantage of floating electrodes and the significant earlier atrial signal recognition by floating electrodes might be useful in future DDD pacemakers by combining a VDD electrode with a fixed atrial electrode.

Efficacy of single lead VDD pacing in patients with impaired and normal left ventricular function

Atrial synchronous ventricular pacing seems to be the best pacing mode for patients with advanced AV block and impaired LV function. The long-term follow-up of single lead VDD pacing was studied in 33 patients with impaired LV function and compared to 42 patients with normal LV function. All patients received the same VDD lead and VDDR pacemaker. The lead model with 13-cm AV spacing between the atrial and ventricular electrode was implanted in 89% of the patients. Follow-ups were 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after implantation. The percentage of atrial sensing and the P wave amplitude were determined at each follow-up. Minimal P wave amplitude at implantation was 2.0 +/- 1.4 mV in patients with impaired and 1.7 +/- 0.9 mV with normal LV function (not significant). At the 12-month follow-up, 33 patients with normal and 23 patients with depressed LV function remained paced in the VDD mode. The remaining patients died in five (impaired LV function) and seven cases (normal LV function) or their pacemakers were programmed to the VVI/VVIR pacing mode in four (impaired LV function) and three cases (normal LV function). P wave amplitude did not differ in the two groups (e.g., at month 12: impaired: 1.17 +/- 0.42 mV; normal: 1.09 +/- 0.49 mV). The atrial sensitivity was programmed in most patients to sensitive settings with no differences between the two groups (e.g., at month 12: impaired: 0.13 +/- 0.06 mV; normal: 0.13 +/- 0.05 mV). The diagnostic counters indicated nearly permanent atrial sensing (e.g., at month 12: impaired: 99.3 +/- 2.2%; normal: 99.0 +/- 1.0 mV). In conclusions, single lead VDD pacing restored AV synchronous ventricular pacing in patients with normal and with impaired LV function indicating that it could be an alternative to DDD pacemakers, but not to dual-chamber pacing.