Exner D V, Rothschild J M, Heal S, Gillis A M
Division of Cardiology, Foothills Hospital, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 1998 Mar;2(1):33-40. doi: 10.1023/a:1009708606035.
Bipolar lead use has increased due to oversensing concerns with older unipolar systems. Data on contemporary unipolar devices with improved hardware design and greater programming flexibility is lacking. Using a randomized crossover design, unipolar and bipolar sensing characteristics of 22 atrial and 16 ventricular leads were compared in 34 patients who had pulse generators of programmable polarity. Unipolar and bipolar intracardiac electrogram amplitudes, pacing and sensing thresholds at rest were similar. Provocative maneuvers were used to assess for myopotential inhibition. At atrial sensitivities of 0.625-1.50 mV, myopotential inhibition occurred in 11 (50%) atrial leads in the unipolar mode compared to 1 (5%) in the bipolar mode (p < 0.001). At sensitivities of > 1.50 mV myopotential inhibition occurred in only 1 ventricular (unipolar) lead. An optimal sensitivity setting for each polarity was derived using clinic test results and assessed by ambulatory ECG (AECG). At these optimal settings, oversensing occurred in 1 (6%) atrial and 1 (8%) ventricular unipolar lead during AECG monitoring, whereas oversensing was not seen in any leads programmed to the bipolar mode. Undersensing occurred in 5 (29%) atrial unipolar versus 1 (6%) bipolar lead (p = 0.08). Undersensing was not observed in any of the ventricular leads. Myopotential inhibition may be frequently provoked by provocative maneuvers at higher sensitivity settings in atrial unipolar leads. The frequency of oversensing can be significantly reduced by defining an optimal sensitivity setting using simple isometric maneuvers. Given present day concerns over bipolar lead longevity, increased utilization of unipolar ventricular leads should be considered.
