Search

Background: Automatic threshold measurement and output adjustment are used as default settings in modern pacemakers. The purpose of the study was to assess Atrial Capture Management (ACM) of Medtronic pacemakers in pediatric patients. Methods: Forty children were enrolled in two centers. Median age was 9.8 years (range 0.8–17.5 years). Half had undergone surgery for congenital heart defects; 45% of patients had an epicardial atrial lead. The pacing indication was atrioventricular block in 82% of patients and sinus node disease in 18%. Manually determined atrial thresholds and ACM measurements were compared. Results: ACM measurements were within the expected variation in 37/40 (93%) of the patients. In one patient the threshold was 0.625-V lower manually than with ACM. One patient had too high an intrinsic atrial rate for ACM to be able to measure threshold. The mean threshold at 0.4 ms was 0.69 ± 0.32 V manually and 0.68 ± 0.35 V with ACM (two-tailed paired t-test, P = 0.52) in all patients. The mean difference was 0.012 V (95% confidence interval: −0.027, 0.053). The mean endocardial threshold was 0.70 ± 0.36 V manually and 0.69 ± 0.38 V with ACM; epicardial threshold was 0.67 ± 0.27 V manually and 0.68 ± 0.32 V with ACM. The difference between the measurements was 0.012 V for endocardial and 0.014 V for epicardial leads. No atrial arrhythmias due to ACM measurements were observed. Conclusions: ACM measures atrial thresholds reliably in pediatric patients with both endocardial and epicardial leads, allowing its use in both. Constant high intrinsic atrial rate may prevent automatic threshold measurement in young children. (PACE 2010; 33:309–313)

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and reliability of automatic ventricular pacing threshold measurement, the Medtronic Capture Management™ (CM), in children with epicardial pacing leads. CM has not been recommended for use with epicardial leads due to lack of pertinent data. Methods: During a 2-year study period, 34 children (mean age 6.1 years, range 0 days to 17.7 years) with epicardial leads were prospectively enrolled. The CM measurements were compared with in-office ventricular pacing threshold measurements. Thirty bipolar and five unipolar epicardial leads were assessed. Results: CM measurements were successful and reliable in 30 out of 35 leads (86%). The mean threshold with CM was 1.16 V (95% CI 1.07–1.26 V), and with standard measurement was 1.18 V (95% CI 1.09–1.28 V), at a pulse width of 0.40 ms. The reasons for failure were evoked response undersensing in two cases (5.7%), and high intrinsic rate in one case. High pacing thresholds prevented accurate CM measurements in two cases. Conclusions: CM automatic threshold measurements are consistent with standard ventricular pacing threshold measurements in children with epicardial leads. We recommend a period of monitoring CM performance before programming it to adjust output according to automatic threshold measurements, in order to find the patients in whom it does not work. The CM feature provides increased pacing safety when it measures well (86% of leads). A larger study is needed to prove the tendency for extending battery life in children with epicardial leads.