Why the study?
Does atrial sensitivity adjustment improve activity-rate responsiveness in patients with atrially placed Activitrax II pacemakers?
Does atrial sensitivity adjustment improve activity-rate responsiveness in patients with atrially placed Activitrax II pacemakers?
The rate responsiveness of the atrial Activitrax II pacemaker is limited by far-field R wave sensing, which may be mitigated by reprogramming atrial sensitivity, though caution is advised for its atrial application.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Sensitivity reprogramming may mitigate far-field sensing in atrial Activitrax II pacemakers; leaves open prospective validation of the unipolar implant index.
The physiological benefit of rate responsive, single-chamber cardiac pacing is well documented. We studied the activity response of nine atrially placed Activitrax II pacemakers. Seven patients were noted to have an inadequate activity-rate response with maximal pacing rates of 85 to 101 beats/min. Marker Channel analysis revealed that the upper rate timeout was reset by far-field R wave sensing, even when sensing occurred in the atrial refractory period. These 9 pacemakers were tested by atrial sensitivity adjustment for ability to exclude far-field R wave sensing, while preserving P wave sensing. Unipolar implantation data were then examined for predictors of this differential far-R and P-wave sensing. Differential atrial sensing occurred in 4/9 pacemakers (2/2 bipolar in the right atrial appendage; 0/1 bipolar in the coronary sinus; and 4/9 unipolar). An empirically developed index utilizing unipolar implant parameters discriminated outcomes for 8/9 unipolar pacemakers. We conclude that: (1) the rate responsiveness of the atrial Activitrax II pacemaker is limited by far-field R wave sensing even when this occurs during atrial channel refractoriness; (2) reprogramming atrial sensitivity to differentially sensed P and far-field R waves may restore appropriate rate responsiveness; and (3) although a unipolar implant discriminant index may correctly identify adequacy of future rate responsiveness, the atrial application of the Activitrax II pacemaker is cautioned until further validation is forthcoming, particularly when used in unipolar and coronary sinus applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shandling et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: