Automatic Sensor Algorithms Expedite Pacemaker Follow‐ups

Abstract

Auto sensor adjustment required less time during routine PM clinical follow-up by reducing steps needed for manual sensor threshold adjustment.

Individual Optimization of Pacing Sensors Improves Exercise Capacity without Influencing Quality of Life

“…Using the activity level of patients (more active, the same, or less active) they concluded that automatic adjustment is less time consuming than manual adjustment. This study supports the current trend in increasing automaticity in pacemakers, although it is disputable if such a rough guide as three levels of activity can be used as a guide for sensor optimization 13 . In general, sensor optimization methods are poorly described, mostly referring to the manufacturers advice.…”

“…To date, limited studies investigated the effect of sensor adjustment and to the best of our knowledge; our study is the first and largest randomized controlled study, comparing DSS with OSS in detail. Previous studies mainly compared different sensors and were not primarily designed to evaluate individual adjustment 5,8,13–16,20 . Sulke et al showed that appropriate programming of sensors is crucial in rate responsive pacing 8 .…”

“…These methods, together with evaluation of the obtained quality of life (QOL), associated with a given sensor can all be used to assess the efficacy of a pacemaker sensor. The American college of cardiology guidelines of exercise testing used for evaluating rate response pacing advices adjustment of the exercise test for the subject's need and however several exercise tests (CAEP, LITE, Bruce, 6‐minute walk test, Kaltenbach step test, stair climbing) are described, consensus lacks about the ideal exercise test protocol for pacemaker sensor optimization 8–16 …”