ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2022
Right ventricular lead sensing latency in pacemaker therapy.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Right ventricular lead sensing latency in pacemaker therapy.Journal of arrhythmia · 2022Article
- Electrocardiographic Identification and Correction of Left Ventricular Pacing Latency.Journal of cardiovascular echographyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pacemaker implantation involves intraoperative testing of ventricular sensing using a device called a pacing system analyzer (PSA). The value obtained is expected to correspond to those taken by the pacemaker after its implantation. This study determined the latency period for sensing intracardiac electrogram (EGM) by the right ventricular (RV) lead. Methods: Patients without significant heart disease and underlying intrinsic atrioventricular (AV) conduction underwent Medtronic or Abbott dual-chamber pacemaker implantation with the RV lead positioned on the mid-septum. Real-time sensing data were obtained through PSA and after pacemaker implantation to evaluate latency as the time interval Q-VS between the onset of QRS on surface electrocardiogram and the sensed EGM by the RV lead. Results: Of 157 patients, 105 had narrow QRS (<120 ms) and 52 had wide QRS of complete right bundle branch block (RBBB). Both narrow-QRS and RBBB patients had longer sensing latency through PSA (50.9 ± 24.2 and 67.8 ± 32.9 ms, respectively) than through pacemaker (18.2 ± 12.8 and 31.2 ± 14.8 ms, respectively, both Conclusion: We demonstrated longer RV lead sensing latency (1) through PSA than through pacemaker, (2) in RBBB than in narrow-QRS, and (3) in Medtronic pacemakers compared with Abbott pacemakers. Knowledge of sensing latency helps the optimization of the AV delay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.