A case report of inappropriate inhibition of ventricular pacing due to a unique pacemaker electrogram storage feature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modern permanent pacemakers (PPMs) have individual features designed to identify cardiac rhythm abnormalities and improve their performance. Inappropriate pacing inhibition may be an undesired outcome from these features and cause symptoms in patients who require frequent pacing, leading to dizziness, and syncope. Inappropriate inhibition can be difficult to identify in circumstances that are intermittent and difficult to reproduce. CASE SUMMARY: A 57-year-old female underwent a mitral valve replacement (MVR) for severe mitral stenosis. One month following MVR, she presented with symptomatic third-degree atrioventricular block, and a dual-chamber PPM (Advisa™, Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA) was implanted and programmed DDD 50-130 b.p.m. At the 3-month follow-up, she reported frequent episodes of lightheadedness. She was found to have intermittent ventricular pacing inhibition on a 48-h Holter monitor due to an internal function of the Advisa™ series of PPMs that attempts to store an electrogram (EGM) every 1 h and 30 s. During the EGM storage, an amplified signal from the storage capacitor can result in oversensing by the ventricular channel and inappropriate pacing inhibition. DISCUSSION: To rectify the issue, the ventricular lead sensitivity value was increased from 0.9 mV to 1.2 mV. No instances of inappropriate ventricular pacing inhibition were noted on follow-up. To our knowledge, this is a rare case of inappropriate ventricular pacing inhibition caused by a combination of PPM self-adjusting sensitivity algorithm and oversensing every 1 h and 30 s from an amplified storage capacitor. Physicians should be aware of this possible complication and differentiate it from device or lead malfunction.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".