Recently, device-based low energy cardoversion shocks have been used as therapy for AF. However, discomfort from internal low energy electrical shocks is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate pain perception with low energy internal discharges. Eighteen patients with ICD devices for malignant ventricular arrhythmias were recruited to receive shocks of 0.4 and 2 J in the nonsedated state. Discharges were delivered in a blinded, random order and questionnaires were used to determine discomfort levels and tolerability. Patients perceived discharges at these energies as relatively uncomfortable, averaging a score of 7.3 on a discomfort scale of 0-10, and could not distinguish 0.4-J shocks from 2-J shocks. Second shocks were perceived as more uncomfortable than initial discharges, regardless of the order in which the shocks were delivered. Despite the perceived discomfort, 83% of patients stated that they would tolerate discharges of this magnitude once per month, and 44% would tolerate weekly discharges. Patients perceive low energy discharges as painful and cannot distinguish between shocks of 0.4 and 2 J. The results suggest that ICD systems developed to treat atrial tachyarrhythmias should minimize the number of shocks delivered to terminate an atrial tachyarrhythmia episode. The majority of the patients tolerated low energy shocks provided the discharges are infrequent (once per month).

Chronic measurement of hemodynamic parameters in the outpatient setting with implantable sensor technology appears to be feasible. The devices are well tolerated without significant untoward effects, and the sensors generally function well over time, providing reliable information. Clinical usefulness remains to be established.

The right atrial appendage is often amputated at the time of cardiopulmonary bypass. Because of concerns regarding lead displacement, use of active fixation atrial leads has been recommended in patients who require permanent atrial or dual chamber pacing after open heart surgery. We evaluated the acute and chronic performance of active and passive fixation atrial leads implanted at our institution between 1985 and 1993 in patients with previous open heart surgery. Of 78 consecutive patients, 38 had an active fixation atrial lead, 28 had a passive fixation steroid-eluting lead, and 12 had a passive fixation lead without steroid-eluting properties. At implantation, sensed P wave amplitudes were similar in the three groups, but lead impedance and threshold were significantly higher for active fixation leads compared to all passive fixation leads. During follow-up, atrial pacing thresholds were significantly higher, and sensed P wave amplitudes significantly lower, in the patients with active fixation leads compared to those with passive fixation leads. Loss of sensing occurred in 6 of 38 (16%) patients with active fixation leads and 1 of 40 (2.5%) patients with a passive fixation lead (P = 0.027). Atrial lead displacement occurred in two patients with active fixation leads and one with a passive fixation lead. Comparison with a parallel group of patients without previous open heart surgery demonstrated that atrial lead performance was similar in the two groups. We conclude that, when permanent atrial or dual chamber pacing is necessary in patients with prior open heart surgery, it is appropriate to implant a passive fixation atrial lead except on the infrequent occasions when a stable atrial position cannot be obtained.

No abstract