{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016467065868263474, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01122754491017964, 'mean_word_length': 5.71859296482412, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is Epicardial Dual Chamber Pacing a Realistic Alternative to Endocardial DDD Pacing? Initial Results of a Prospective Study

Seventeen patients, in whom an epicardial (n = 7) or a transvenous DDDM pacemaker system had been implanted between June 1988 and October 1990, were followed up for pacemaker and lead related complications, pacemaker longevity, and electrophysiological lead parameters. The mean follow‐up interval was 18 ± 12 months, maximum 34 months. There were no differences in chronic arrial and ventricular sensing thresholds between epicardial and endocardial stimulation, nor were there any differences concerning lead related complications between the two pacing modalities. However, atrial as well as ventricular chronic stimulation thresholds were significantly higher with epicardial stimulation resulting in a twofold increase in atrial energy consumption and a threefold increase in the ventricular energy consumption. Thus, in one patient with an epicardial DDD system, the pacemaker had to be replaced prematurely because of battery depletion. It is concluded that epicardial DDD stimulation can be reliably performed as far as atrial and ventricular sensing is concerned, but that the energy requirements of available myocardial leads are not satisfactory for making optimal use of modern pacemaker capability.