Late follow-up of dual-chamber rate-adaptive pacing

Benditt, David G.; Wilbert, Leslie; Hansen, R Nyberg; Alagona, Peter; Greenawald, Ken; Ghali, Magdi; Wheelan, Kevin; Steinhaus, David; Collins, Joanne; Fetter, Joseph; Lurie, Keith G.; Remole, Stephen

doi:10.1016/0002-9149(93)91016-b

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The activity-triggered rate response was significantly different from the sinus rate in some experimental settings, whereas it was closely matched to the underlying sinus rate during every-day activities [8][9][10][11]. Additionally, during long-term followup most patients remained in the activity-triggered DDDR pacing mode [12]. n.s.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Prospective Randomized Comparison between Fixed Rate Response Programming and Automatic Rate Response Optimization in Activity-Triggered DDDR Pacemakers

Schuchert

Langen²,

Michels³

et al. 1997

Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Activity rate response programming depends on the physician’s experience and on the limited knowledge of patient’s daily activities. The present investigation compares a new continuous automatic adjustment of the activity rate response called rate response optimization (OPT) with fixed activity rate response programming (FIXED). At hospital discharge 37 patients with Thera DR pacemakers (Medtronic) were randomized either to FIXED (n = 20; 65 ± 12 years, male n = 12) or to OPT (n = 17; 65 ± 12 years, male n = 13). After 1 month’s follow-up occurrence of complaints related to rate-responsive pacing and the percentage of pacing were assessed. Other activity sensor parameters were programmed according to clinical judgement and similarly distributed in the two groups. Activity rate response was 7.1 ± 1.4 (FIXED) and 7.2 ± 1.7 (OPT), activity threshold was medium in 9 (FIXED) and 8 (OPT), and medium/low in 11 (FIXED) and 9 (OPT) patients, respectively. No patient with FIXED had any complaints with respect to activity-triggered rate response. One patient with OPT reported palpitations due to rapid changes in the pacing rate leading to reprogramming of the pacemaker. Atrium and ventricle were paced in 56 ± 31% (FIXED) and in 58 ± 35% (OPT; not significant) and the atrium only in 4 ± 10% (FIXED) and 0% (OPT; not significant), respectively. In the 17 patients programmed to OPT the pacemaker increased activity rate response in 5 and decreased activity rate response in 3 patients. In conclusion, as only 1 (3%) patient had complaints related to the activity rate response and fixed rate response programming according to clinical judgement already resulting in symptom-free DDDR pacing, no differences could be detected between the fixed rate response programming and rate response optimization.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Prospective Randomized Comparison between Fixed Rate Response Programming and Automatic Rate Response Optimization in Activity-Triggered DDDR Pacemakers

Schuchert

Langen²,

Michels³

et al. 1997

Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The need for periodic follow‐up visits is a factor in the selection of a pacemaker. Although, as previously discussed, many patients can benefit from advanced pacemaker features such as dual chamber pacing or activity‐modulated rate responsiveness, these types of pacemakers usually require more frequent follow‐up 69 , 85 , 86 . Telephone telemetry can be used to evaluate the pacemaker battery and determine that the pacemaker is functional.…”

Section: Follow‐upmentioning

confidence: 99%