Interpreting the Normal Pacemaker Electrocardiograph.

Modern cardiac pacing systems have sophisticated software to document, evaluate and record intrinsic and paced rhythms as well as correct pacing abnormalities and rhythm disturbances by applying algorithms, which are generally company specific. To the cardiologist and technologist, these algorithms may be difficult to interpret on both the 12-lead electrocardiograph (ECG) and Holter ambulatory monitoring recordings, which are usually performed because of patient symptoms or physician concern. The tracings may appear bewildering and mimic pacemaker malfunction, thus leading to unnecessary tests or even surgery. This review will define the common programmed pacemaker modes and describe a range of ECG appearances of normal pacemaker function during the application of testing, correcting or therapy algorithms.

Twisted Leads: The Footprints of Malpositioned Electrocardiographic Leads.

BACKGROUND: Malposition of electrocardiograph (ECG) leads is poorly recognised even by cardiologists who report tracings. When ECG tracings are regularly performed by doctors, nurses or technicians, lead malposition is very uncommon particularly if the operator can also interpret the findings. However, a significant proportion of 12-lead ECG tracings are today performed in a doctor's surgery or by private pathology services, often in haste without sufficient attention to correct lead positioning. As a result, a variety of malposition combinations occur, which in turn may confuse the interpreter of the ECG tracing, leading to incorrect diagnoses. OBJECTIVES: To investigate various combinations of ECG lead malposition and determine if characteristic findings can be summarised into identifiable footprints. METHODS: In 10 normal subjects, 12-lead ECGs were performed with normal lead positioning as well as six limb lead malpositions and reversal of chest leads. RESULTS: In all subjects, there was consistency in the ECGs performed allowing the creation of five characteristic and easily identifiable footprints. CONCLUSIONS: A summary of the footprints of ECG lead malposition should be readily available for those who perform ECGs, those who interpret the tracings and those responsible for clinical care.

Proximity of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads to coronary arteries as assessed by cardiac computed tomography.

INTRODUCTION: There have been rare case reports of damage to adjacent coronary arteries by screw-in pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads. Our aim was to assess the proximity of pacemaker and ICD leads to the major coronary anatomy using cardiac computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Cardiac CT images were retrospectively analyzed to assess the spatial relationship of device lead tips to the major coronary anatomy. RESULTS: Fifty-two right ventricular (RV) leads (17 apical, 35 nonapical) and 35 right atrial (RA) leads were assessed. Leads on the RV antero-septal junction (20 of 52) were close (median 4.7 mm) to, and orientated toward, the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery. RA leads in the anterior (26 of 35) and lateral (seven of 35) walls of the RA appendage were not close to (16.9 ± 7.7 mm and 18.9 ± 12.4 mm, respectively) and directed away from the right coronary artery. However, an RA lead adjacent to the superior border of the tricuspid valve was 4.3 mm from the right coronary artery and an RA lead on the medial wall of the RA appendage was 1.6 mm away from the aorta. An RV pacemaker lead in the lateral wall of the RV inlet was 3.4 mm from the right coronary artery. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, a majority of RV leads were on the antero-septal junction and close to the overlying LAD coronary artery. RA leads adjacent to the tricuspid valve or on the medial RA appendage were in close proximity to the right coronary artery and aorta, respectively.

The evolution of the cardiac implantable electronic device connector.

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) play a vital role in the management of cardiac rhythm disturbances. The devices are comprised of two primary components: a generator and lead joined by a connector. Original pacemaker lead connectors were created de novo at the time of implantation or replacement and were very unreliable. With the development of new lead designs, creation of a standard connector configuration, the IS-1 connector became mandatory. Similar connector development also occurred with the advent of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), resulting in creation of the high voltage standard: the DF-1 connector. Differing from a pacemaker lead, the ICD lead connector requires one IS-1 connector and one or two DF-1 connectors, resulting in a large cumbersome lead connector and generator header block. Recently, a revolutionary quad pole single plug connector standard has been approved for market release. These are the single-pin DF4 and IS4 lead connectors that carry low- and high-voltage poles or all low-voltage poles, respectively. These connectors, together with new labeling guidelines, have simplified operative procedures and reduced errors, when mating lead connectors into the generator's connector block.

Cardiac pacing: memories of a bygone era.

The first cardiac pacemaker implants occurred in the late 1950s and involved insertion of epicardial or epimyocardial leads and abdominal pulse generators. By the mid 1960s, cardiologists were making attempts to insert transvenous leads into the right ventricle. These early unipolar leads had large, polished, high polarization electrodes, no fixation device, and no lumen in which to place a stylet for lead positioning. The lead implantation procedures were usually long and the irradiation to both patient and operator excessive. Pulse generators were powered by zinc-mercury cells, which were large, unreliable, and prone to sudden output failure. Postoperative complications such as lead dislodgement, exit block, and premature power source failure were very common with most patients requiring further surgery within a year. Little has been written of this period and in particular the experiences of the operators, such that today's pacemaker implanters have virtually no knowledge of this bygone era. This historical report by four Australian cardiologists details the operative procedures and follow-up management of those original pacemaker recipients.

The subpectoral pacemaker implant: it isn't what it seems!

The traditional pulse generator implantation site lies subcutaneous on the fascia of the pectoralis major muscle. This article describes a subpectoral pocket approach, which on anatomic investigation is actually "intrapectoral" and offers a much improved cosmetic result with the potential advantage of less erosion. In the authors' experience with over 1000 initial pacemaker implants and pulse generator replacements, the potential concerns of neurovascular and muscular damage have not been realized. There has been no pulse generator damage from the ribs, serious loculated hematomas, or unusual postoperative or chronic pain. From experience with pulse generator recalls, the replacement procedure has not been significantly more difficult than with the subcutaneous approach. The intrapectoral approach has now become the authors' routine in patients without significant adipose tissue overlying the pectoralis major muscle.

Ventricular pacing in the presence of tricuspid valve disease.

Pacemaker implantation following tricuspid valve surgery remains challenging, but recent developments in lead technology have significantly improved the options for ventricular pacing. In the presence of significant tricuspid regurgitation, steroid-eluting active-fixation leads should be used routinely, and in patients with a tricuspid prosthesis, the use of a dedicated cardiac venous pacing system is likely to be the best option.