Safety and Feasibility of Transesophageal Pacing in a Dog

Effect of body position on transesophageal atrial pacing in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of body position on transesophageal atrial pacing (TEAP) in dogs.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, experimental trial.

ANIMALS

A total of eight mixed-breed dogs, median body mass 25 kg (range 11-31 kg).

METHODS

TEAP was performed using a 6 Fr (2 mm) pacing catheter introduced transorally and positioned in the lower esophagus in left lateral recumbency. The catheter was withdrawn in 5 mm increments until successful TEAP. The minimum pacing threshold (MPT) was determined at each 5 mm increment until atrial capture could not be achieved at a maximal pulse amplitude of 40 mA. The zone of capture (ZOC) was the total distance over which TEAP was achieved. The same process was repeated in right lateral, ventral and dorsal recumbency. A linear mixed model was used to assess the impact of body position on TEAP and ZOC.

RESULTS

TEAP was achieved in all body positions. There was significant random effect of individual dogs on ZOC (p = 0.048) but not on MPT (p = 0.109). MPT was 11.56 ± 8.65 mA (mean ± SD), 8.43 ± 2.29 mA, 10.63 ± 6.91 mA and 10 ± 7.44 mA for dorsal, left and right lateral, and ventral recumbency, respectively. ZOC was 5.12 ± 2.08 cm, 6.35 ± 2.41 cm, 5.94 ± 3.23 cm and 5.31 ± 2.2 cm for dorsal, left lateral and right lateral, and ventral recumbency, respectively. Neither ZOC (p = 0.363) nor MPT (p = 0.716) varied significantly between body positions.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

TEAP can be performed successfully in all body positions in dogs. Body position did not significantly influence MPT or ZOC values for TEAP. Further studies are needed to compare the efficacy of TEAP with the efficacy of standard pharmacological therapy for management of bradycardia during general anesthesia in dogs.

The perioperative management of small animals with previously implanted pacemakers undergoing anaesthesia

OBJECTIVE

There is little information in the veterinary literature about the perioperative management of small animal patients with previously implanted pacemakers undergoing elective or emergency non-cardiac procedures. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature with regard to human patients, with previously implanted pacemakers, undergoing general anaesthesia. Using this and the current information on pacemakers and anaesthesia in dogs and cats, we provide recommendations for small animal patients in this situation.

DATABASES USED

Google Scholar, PubMed and CAB Abstracts using and interlinking and narrowing the search terms: "dog", "cat", "small animals", "anaesthesia", "pacemaker", "perioperative", "transvenous pacing", "temporary pacing". Scientific reports and human and small animal studies from the reference lists of the retrieved papers were reviewed. In addition, related human and veterinary cardiology and anaesthesia textbooks were also included to create a narrative review of the subject.

CONCLUSIONS

The best perioperative care for these animals comes from a multidisciplinary approach involving the anaesthetist, cardiologist, surgeon and intensive care unit team. When such an approach is not feasible, the anaesthetist should be familiar with pacemaker technology and how to avoid perioperative complications such as electromagnetic interference, lead damage and reprogramming of the device. The preanaesthetic assessment should be thorough. Information regarding the indication for pacemaker placement, complications during the procedure, location, type and programming of the pacemaker should be readily available. The anaesthetic management of these veterinary patients aims to preserve cardiovascular function while avoiding hypotension, and backup pacing should be available during the perioperative period. Further prospective studies are needed to describe the best perioperative care in small animals with a previously implanted pacemaker.

Effect of pulse width on transesophageal atrial pacing in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of stimulus pulse width (PW) on pacing threshold (PT), zone of capture (ZOC) and extraneous muscular stimulation (EMS).

STUDY DESIGN

Experimental trial in client-owned dogs.

ANIMALS

Seventeen dogs, median weight 16.1 kg (interquartile range: 11.4-21.5).

METHODS

Transesophageal atrial pacing (TAP) involved a 6 Fr pacing catheter inserted trans-orally into the esophagus to a position aboral to the heart in anesthetized dogs. The catheter was slowly withdrawn until atrial pacing was noted on an electrocardiogram. The catheter was withdrawn in 1 cm increments until TAP could not be achieved. PTs were recorded at each pacing site using PWs of 10.0, 5.0, 2.0 and 1.8 ms, always in that order.

RESULTS

The overall lowest mean PTs for all dogs were 6 ± 3 mA, 9 ± 4 mA, 11 ± 5 mA and 13 ± 5 mA at PWs of 10.0, 5.0, 2.0 and 1.8 ms, respectively. A significant decrease in overall minimum PT was noted using a PW of 10.0 ms compared with either 2.0 or 1.8 ms (p = 0.043 and p = 0.001, respectively) and pacing using 5.0 ms compared with 1.8 ms (p = 0.028). A significant increase in ZOC was noted using a PW of 10.0 ms compared with PWs of 5.0, 2.0 and 1.8 ms (p = 0.0047, p = 0.0006 and p = 0.0003, respectively), using a PW of 5.0 ms compared with PWs of 2.0 and 1.8 ms (p = 0.0011 and p = 0.0003, respectively) and using a PW of 2.0 compared with one of 1.8 ms (p = 0.0084).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Use of 10.0 or 5.0 ms PW to perform TAP minimized the power required to pace the atria, while a PW of 10.0 ms maximized the size of the ZOC.

Efficacy of two commercially available cardiac pacing catheters for transesophageal atrial pacing in dogs

OBJECTIVE

Compare the efficacy of two cardiac pacing catheters for transesophageal atrial pacing (TAP).

ANIMALS

Ten healthy dogs.

METHODS

Transesophageal atrial pacing was attempted in left lateral recumbency under general anesthesia. In series, a curved electrophysiologic (EP) catheter and a straight transesophageal pacing (TP) catheter were passed transorally into the distal esophagus, caudal to the heart. Each catheter was slowly withdrawn until pacing was initiated. The catheter continued to be withdrawn in 5 mm increments until capture was no longer achieved at maximal pacing setting creating a total zone of capture (tZOC). Minimum pacing threshold (Th(min)) and degree of extraneous muscle stimulation (EMS) were determined at each site.

RESULTS

The EP catheter achieved TAP in 10/10 dogs with a Th(min) of 8.8 ± 4.8 mA and tZOC of 4.0 ± 1.7 cm. The TP catheter achieved TAP in 7/10 dogs with a Th(min) of 22.5 ± 5.6 mA and tZOC of 1.2 ± 1.6 cm. No EMS was noted during TAP at Th(min) using the EP catheter. Of the 7 dogs in which TAP was successful, 3/7 experienced considerable EMS at Th(min). There was no significant relationship between patient body weight and Th(min) with either catheter (EP catheter P = 0.09; TP catheter P = 0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

The electrophysiology catheter captured the atria of more dogs over a larger area without EMS as compared to the TP catheter. The electrophysiology catheter is recommended for transesophageal atrial pacing in dogs.

Use of transesophageal atrial pacing to provide temporary chronotropic support in a dog undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation

A 14.5-kg, 13-year-old female spayed Cocker spaniel was evaluated because of episodic hind limb weakness. Results of examination were consistent with sick sinus syndrome with intermittent second-degree atrioventricular block. Transesophageal atrial pacing was successful in providing chronotropic support during permanent pacemaker implantation. Transesophageal atrial pacing appears to be a viable option for temporary atrial pacing in dogs with hemodynamically marked bradycardia without significant atrioventricular blockade.

Interventional cardiology for the criticalist

OBJECTIVE

To review indications, procedures, and prognosis for common cardiovascular emergencies requiring intervention in small animals.

ETIOLOGY

Pericardial effusion, symptomatic bradycardia, and heartworm-induced caval syndrome are examples of clinical scenarios commonly requiring intervention. Pericardial effusion in small animals occurs most frequently from cardiac neoplasia, idiopathic pericarditis, or congestive heart failure. Indications for temporary pacing include transient bradyarrhythmias, ingestions resulting in chronotropic incompetence, and emergency stabilization of critical bradyarrhythmias. Caval syndrome results from a large dirofilarial worm burden, pulmonary hypertension, and mechanical obstruction of right-sided cardiac output with resultant hemolysis and organ dysfunction.

DIAGNOSIS

The diagnosis of pericardial effusion is suspected from signalment and physical findings and confirmed with cardiac ultrasound. Symptomatic bradycardias often present for syncope and definitive diagnosis derives from an ECG. Caval syndrome is diagnosed upon clinical, hematologic, and ultrasonographic evidence of severe heartworm infestation, cardiovascular compromise, and/or mechanical hemolysis.

THERAPY

Pericardial effusion is alleviated by pericardiocentesis in the emergency setting, though may require further intervention for long-term palliation. Temporary transvenous pacing can be performed emergently to stabilize the symptomatic patient with a bradyarrhythmia. Dirofilariasis leading to caval syndrome requires urgent heartworm extraction.

PROGNOSIS

The prognosis for pericardial effusion is dependent upon the underlying etiology; the prognosis for cardiac pacing is favorable, and the prognosis for caval syndrome is grave if untreated and guarded to fair if heartworm extraction is performed.