Acute and Chronic Pulse‐Width Thresholds in Solid Versus Porous Tip Electrodes

Abstract

Sixty-one patients given programmable pacemakers at initial implantation have been followed for a mean of 18 months (3-42) with non-invasive measurements of myocardial pulse-width threshold. Fifty of the patients had CPI 0505/0522 (Microlith-P/Microthin-PI) pacemakers with either Cordis 322-462 8 mm2 ball tip (n=12), Cordis 322-620 17.5 mm2 (n=23), or CPI 4116 porous tip electrodes (stimulation area 7.5 mm2 and sensing area 50 mm2) (n=15). Eleven patients had Medtronic 5985 (Spectrax-SX) pacemakers with either Medtronic 6907-R 8 mm2 ring tip (n=7), 6907 11 mm2 (n=3) or 6917 myocardial electrodes (area 12 mm2) (n=1). At acute implant, the ball tip and porous tip electrodes had the lowest stimulation thresholds, but the differences were only statistically significant in comparison with the 17.5 mm2 electrode (p less than 0.01). Chronically there were no significant differences between the various electrodes (p greater than 0.1), but the ball tip electrode tended to give best long-term results, and the porous tip electrode the poorest. Thirty-eight of the 61 patients (62.3%) had chronic pulse-width thresholds of 0.1 ms or less at approximately equal to 5 V output, indicating that pulse-width programming is a useful way to conserve battery energy. However, at some stage of the study, six of the patients (9.8%) had a pulse-width threshold of 0.5 ms or more. Pulse width should therefore not be set too narrow in standard nonprogrammable pacemakers.