Electrocardiographic Predictors of Coronary Heart Disease and Sudden Cardiac Deaths in Men and Women Free From Cardiovascular Disease in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study

BackgroundWe evaluated predictors of coronary heart disease (CHD) death and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.Methods and ResultsThe study population included 13 621 men and women 45 to 65 years of age free from manifest cardiovascular disease at entry. Hazard ratios from Cox regression with 95% confidence intervals were computed for 18 dichotomized repolarization‐related ECG variables. The average follow‐up was 14 years. Independent predictors of CHD death in men were TaVR‐ and rate‐adjusted QTend (QTea), with a 2‐fold increased risk for both, and spatial angles between mean QRS and T vectors and between Tpeak (Tp) and normal R reference vectors [θ(Rm|Tm) and θ(Tp|Tref), respectively], with a >1.5‐fold increased risk for both. In women, independent predictors of the risk of CHD death were θ(Rm|Tm), with a 2‐fold increased risk for θ(Rm|Tm), and θ(Tp|Tref), with a 1.7‐fold increased risk. Independent predictors of SCD in men were θ(Tp|Tref) and QTea, with a 2‐fold increased risk, and θ(Tinit|Tterm), with a 1.6‐fold increased risk. In women, θ(Tinit|Tterm) was an independent predictor of SCD, with a >3‐fold increased risk, and θ(Rm|Tm) and TV1 were >2‐fold for both.Conclusionsθ(Rm|Tm) and θ(Tp|Tref), reflecting different aspects of ventricular repolarization, were independent predictors of CHD death and SCD, and TaVR and TV1 were also independent predictors. The risk levels for independent predictors for both CHD death and SCD were stronger in women than in men, and QTea was a significant predictor in men but not in women

Automatic measurement of atrial pacing thresholds in dual-chamber pacemakers: Clinical experience with atrial capture management

BACKGROUND The Medtronic EnPulse (TM) pacemaker incorporates the new atrial capture management (ACM) algorithm to automatically measure atrial capture thresholds and subsequently manage atrial pacing outputs. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of ACM. METHODS Two hundred patients with an indication for a dual-chamber pacemaker underwent implantation. ACM thresholds and manually measured atrial pacing thresholds were assessed at follow-up visits. Clinical equivalence was defined as the ACM-measured threshold being within -0.25 V to +0.5 V of the manually measured threshold. The clinician analyzed all ACM measurements performed in-office for evidence of proarrhythmia. RESULTS All 200 implanted patients had a 1-month visit, and validated manual and in-office ACM threshold data were available for 123 patients. The ACM threshold was 0.595 +/- 0.252 V, and the manual threshold was 0.584 +/- 0.233 V. The mean difference was 0.010 V with a 95% confidence interval of (-0.001, 0.021). The mean difference over all visits was 0.011 V. For all patients, the individual threshold differences were within the range of clinical equivalence at all visits. No atrial arrhythmias were observed during 892 ACM tests in 193 patients. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated that the ACM algorithm is safe, accurate, and reliable over time. ACM was demonstrated to be clinically equivalent to the manual atrial threshold test in all patients at 1 month and over the entire follow-up period of up to 6 months. ACM ensures atrial capture, may save time during follow-up, and can be used to manage atrial pacing outputs