Predictors of successful atrial and ventricular auto capture pacemaker algorithm post implantation: single-centre experience

Hacioğlu, Ebru; Mugnai, Giacomo; Czapla, Jens; Nijs, Jan; Wellens, Francis; Schoors, Danny; Meir, Marc La; Chierchia, Gian Battista; Brugada, Pedro; Asmundis, Carlo de

doi:10.1080/ac.71.5.3167506

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[1] Atrial threshold measurement by analyzing ER had been difficult because the amplitude of ER was too low to detect with the disturbance of polarization (POL). [2] For this reason, the manufacturer Medtronic had developed atrial automatic capture measurement (ACM) with a specific algorithm of introducing premature atrial pacing and sensing of atrial or ventricular responses according to the pacing modes to assess atrial threshold. ACM confirmed atrial capture depending on a stable sinus rhythm or a stable atrioventricular conduction (AVC), or it could not work normally.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of Atrial AutoCapture™ to Detect Atrial Evoked Response

Qin

Zhao

et al. 2017

Chinese Medical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%