Electrogram analysis to detect cathodal and anodal capture in left ventricular cardiac resynchronization pacing leads. Issue 2 (13th January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pfeffer, Cameron; Fryer, Michael; Quah, Jing Xian; Dayananda, Naresh; Tung, Matthew
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 45:Issue 2(2022)
• Page Start: 165
• Page End: 175
• Publication Date: 2022-01-13
• Subjects: anodal capture -- cardiac resynchronization therapy -- cathodal capture -- electrogram -- multipoint pacing -- quad‐site capture; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14403
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: Our study analyzed cardiac electrograms (EGMs) to identify characteristics for detecting cathodal, anodal, or cathodal‐anodal (simultaneous) capture in left ventricular (LV) quadripolar pacing leads of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients. The relationship between these EGM characteristics and the electrocardiogram (ECG) was also examined. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 54 bipolar pacing configurations across nine patients with implanted CRT devices and quadripolar leads who had undergone a 12 lead ECG optimization. Three pacing tests (cathode unipolar, anode unipolar, and bipolar) per bipolar pair were performed, examining ECG and EGM morphology changes accompanying each test and any transitions of morphology or amplitude during voltage stepdown. Results: During the cathode and anode unipolar pacing tests, the EGM was biphasic (negative/positive) or monophasic (positive) in 52/53 (98%), and biphasic (positive/negative) or monophasic (negative) in 50/51 (98%), respectively. During bipolar LV capture threshold testing, 30 bipolar pairs displayed a sudden increase in EGM amplitude (median 9.4 mV, interquartile range [7–14 mV]) when transitioning from cathodal‐anodal capture to cathodal or anodal capture. Ninety percent of these EGM transitions had a corresponding simultaneous change in ECG, while 10% had no ECG changes. Two patients demonstrated "quad‐site" capture on their quadripolar lead with multipoint pacing enabled and cathodal‐anodal capture from each stimulus. Conclusion: EGM characteristics during LV pacing tests can reliably detect cathodal, anodal, or cathodal‐anodal capture, with greater sensitivity than 12 lead ECG changes. Integration of EGM analysis into routine CRT device follow up can be performed easily and may have implications for CRT efficacy.