These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Electrophysiological properties of a new permanent endocardial lead for uni- and bipolar pacing.
    Author: Breivik K, Engedal H, Ohm OJ.
    Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 1982 Mar; 5(2):268-74. PubMed ID: 6176968.
    Abstract:
    Unipolar and bipolar electrode systems were compared for electrogram amplitudes and slew rates, signal source impedance, and myocardial stimulation threshold and resistance in 15 consecutive patients who received a new endocardial electrode (Cordis 325-161). The bipolar electrograms showed the highest amplitude in nine of the patients (60%). The unipolar and bipolar electrograms were equal in four patients (26.7%), whereas the unipolar electrograms were highest in only two patients (13.3%). The difference in mean amplitude between bipolar (11.1 mV) and unipolar (10.1 mV) electrograms was statistically significant (p 0.05). Mean slew rates were almost equal (1.7 versus 1.6 V/s; p greater than 0.1). The bipolar electrode system always gave somewhat higher signal source impedance than the unipolar system (p 0.001). The current threshold was significantly lower during bipolar pacing (0.59 mA) in constant current pacing mode, than during unipolar pacing (0.65 mA) (p less than 0.05). No significant differences were found during constant voltage pacing. Stimulation resistance was highest in the bipolar electrode system (p less than 0.001). We conclude that the bipolar electrode system is as good as, or better than, the unipolar system both for ventricular sensing and for pacing.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]