Ya-Xun Sun, Jing Gao, Chen-Yang Jiang, Yu-Mei Xue, Yi-Zhou Xu, Gang Liu, Ji-Hong Guo, Xia Sheng, Yang Ye, Hong He, Yun-Tao Zhao, Hector Barajas-Martinez, Guo-Sheng Fu, Dan Hu
Abstract
Introduction: T wave oversensing (TWOS) is a major drawback of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and data on predictors of TWOS in ICD is limited. We aimed to calculate a novel index of T wave safety margin (TWSM) and assess its potential for evaluating TWOS during the procedure of ICD implantation. Methods and Results: Thirty-two consecutive patients with ICD implantation were enrolled. During each procedure of ICD implantation, different ICD generators were connected to implanted sensing lead through active-fixation leads and bridging cables. R and T wave amplitudes were measured on ICD printouts according to the gain. The ICDs were programed to the most sensitive settings to reveal possible TWOS. A novel index TWSM was calculated according to the corresponding sensing algorithm of ICD. There was discrepancy of R wave amplitudes measured by different ICDs (P < 0.01). In Fortify and Teligen ICDs, T wave amplitudes showed no difference (P > 0.05) and TWSMs were sufficiently high (post sensing: 13.0 ± 7.6 and 28.3 ± 16.5, respectively, post pacing: 5.0 ± 2.2 and 4.6 ± 0.9, respectively). In nine patients with 10 TWOS episodes detected during the procedure of ICD implantation, generators with the highest TWSM were chosen. Only one TWOS episode during pacing was recorded during the 25 ± 7 mo follow-up period. Conclusions: We first propose the index of TWSM during ICD implantation as a potentially efficient predictor for TWOS. Evaluation of TWSM might help to reduce TWOS episodes in patients with high risk of TWOS. Prospective studies are warranted to validate this index and its potential to reduce TWOS episodes.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,913,495
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#7,231
of 13,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,731
of 316,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#168
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,760 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
