Feasibility of extravascular pacing with a novel substernal electrode configuration: The Substernal Pacing Acute Clinical Evaluation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators provide an alternative to transvenous defibrillation but require higher shock outputs and offer no antitachycardia pacing. The Substernal Pacing Acute Clinical Evaluation (SPACE) study evaluated the feasibility of pacing from an extravascular substernal location. OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of the SPACE study was to characterize pacing from the substernal space. Secondary objectives included evaluating extracardiac stimulation and recording electrograms. METHODS: The SPACE study prospectively evaluated the feasibility of pacing with a commercially available electrophysiology catheter acutely implanted in the substernal space via minimally invasive subxiphoid access. Pacing data were collected in ≥7 vectors using constant current stimulation up to 20 mA and pulse width up to 10 ms. RESULTS: Catheter placement was successful in all 26 patients who underwent the procedure, with a mean placement time of 11.7 ± 10.1 minutes. Eighteen patients (69%) had successful ventricular capture in ≥1 tested vector. The mean pacing threshold at a pulse width of 10 ms was 7.3 ± 4.2 mA across all vectors (5.8 ± 4.4 V). Failed capture was generally associated with suboptimal catheter placement or presumed air ingression. A low level of extracardiac stimulation was observed in 1 patient. The mean R-wave amplitude ranged from 2.98 to 4.11 mV in the unipolar configuration and from 0.83 to 3.95 mV in the bipolar configuration. CONCLUSION: The data from the SPACE study demonstrate that pacing is feasible from the extravascular substernal location. A substernal electrode configuration has the potential to provide pacing in a future extravascular device without need for intracardiac hardware placement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".