Effects of catheter shape, interelectrode spacing, and electrode size on transesophageal atrial pacing in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine effects of catheter shape, interelectrode spacing (IS), and electrode size (ES) on pacing threshold (PT), extraneous muscular stimulation (EMS), and zone of capture (ZOC) for dogs undergoing transesophageal atrial pacing (TAP). ANIMALS: 10 purpose-bred dogs without cardiac conduction disturbances. PROCEDURES: 7 configurations for TAP catheters were tested in each dog to evaluate effects of catheter shape (curved or straight), IS (5, 15, and 25 mm), and ES (2, 4, and 6 mm). Each catheter was passed into the esophagus to a location aboral to the heart and slowly withdrawn until atrial pacing was achieved. Then, catheters were withdrawn in 5-mm increments until pacing could not be achieved. Outcomes measured at each pacing site included PT, degree of EMS, and ZOC. RESULTS: There was a significantly lower PT, wider ZOC, and less EMS for the curved catheter than for the straight catheter. An ES of 6 mm induced significantly more EMS than was induced by an ES of 2 or 4 mm. An IS of 5 mm induced significantly less EMS and a significantly narrower ZOC but required a significantly higher PT, compared with results for an ES of 15 or 25 mm. Additionally, there was a significant direct correlation between IS and ZOC. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated that a curved catheter with multiple 4-mm electrodes that provides for variable IS would be ideal for TAP in dogs. IMPACT FOR HUMAN MEDICINE: TAP catheters currently used in human medicine are straight. The PT in humans may potentially be reduced with curved catheters.

Effect of pulse width on transesophageal atrial pacing in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of stimulus pulse width (PW) on pacing threshold (PT), zone of capture (ZOC) and extraneous muscular stimulation (EMS). STUDY DESIGN: Experimental trial in client-owned dogs. ANIMALS: Seventeen dogs, median weight 16.1 kg (interquartile range: 11.4-21.5). METHODS: Transesophageal atrial pacing (TAP) involved a 6 Fr pacing catheter inserted trans-orally into the esophagus to a position aboral to the heart in anesthetized dogs. The catheter was slowly withdrawn until atrial pacing was noted on an electrocardiogram. The catheter was withdrawn in 1 cm increments until TAP could not be achieved. PTs were recorded at each pacing site using PWs of 10.0, 5.0, 2.0 and 1.8 ms, always in that order. RESULTS: The overall lowest mean PTs for all dogs were 6 ± 3 mA, 9 ± 4 mA, 11 ± 5 mA and 13 ± 5 mA at PWs of 10.0, 5.0, 2.0 and 1.8 ms, respectively. A significant decrease in overall minimum PT was noted using a PW of 10.0 ms compared with either 2.0 or 1.8 ms (p = 0.043 and p = 0.001, respectively) and pacing using 5.0 ms compared with 1.8 ms (p = 0.028). A significant increase in ZOC was noted using a PW of 10.0 ms compared with PWs of 5.0, 2.0 and 1.8 ms (p = 0.0047, p = 0.0006 and p = 0.0003, respectively), using a PW of 5.0 ms compared with PWs of 2.0 and 1.8 ms (p = 0.0011 and p = 0.0003, respectively) and using a PW of 2.0 compared with one of 1.8 ms (p = 0.0084). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Use of 10.0 or 5.0 ms PW to perform TAP minimized the power required to pace the atria, while a PW of 10.0 ms maximized the size of the ZOC.

Efficacy of two commercially available cardiac pacing catheters for transesophageal atrial pacing in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the efficacy of two cardiac pacing catheters for transesophageal atrial pacing (TAP). ANIMALS: Ten healthy dogs. METHODS: Transesophageal atrial pacing was attempted in left lateral recumbency under general anesthesia. In series, a curved electrophysiologic (EP) catheter and a straight transesophageal pacing (TP) catheter were passed transorally into the distal esophagus, caudal to the heart. Each catheter was slowly withdrawn until pacing was initiated. The catheter continued to be withdrawn in 5 mm increments until capture was no longer achieved at maximal pacing setting creating a total zone of capture (tZOC). Minimum pacing threshold (Th(min)) and degree of extraneous muscle stimulation (EMS) were determined at each site. RESULTS: The EP catheter achieved TAP in 10/10 dogs with a Th(min) of 8.8 ± 4.8 mA and tZOC of 4.0 ± 1.7 cm. The TP catheter achieved TAP in 7/10 dogs with a Th(min) of 22.5 ± 5.6 mA and tZOC of 1.2 ± 1.6 cm. No EMS was noted during TAP at Th(min) using the EP catheter. Of the 7 dogs in which TAP was successful, 3/7 experienced considerable EMS at Th(min). There was no significant relationship between patient body weight and Th(min) with either catheter (EP catheter P = 0.09; TP catheter P = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: The electrophysiology catheter captured the atria of more dogs over a larger area without EMS as compared to the TP catheter. The electrophysiology catheter is recommended for transesophageal atrial pacing in dogs.