Key result
Double-sensor pacemaker activation improved quality of life in 75% of patients compared to single-sensor activation (P=0.0242), but did not improve physical efficiency.
Why the study?
Does activation of both accelerometer and minute-ventilation sensors improve physical efficiency and quality of life in patients with sinus node dysfunction and chronotropic incompetence compared to accelerometer alone?
RCT (n=20)
Single-blind
randomized
Does activation of both accelerometer and minute-ventilation sensors improve physical efficiency and quality of life in patients with sinus node dysfunction and chronotropic incompetence compared to accelerometer alone?
In patients with sinus node dysfunction and chronotropic incompetence, dual-sensor rate-responsive pacing improves quality of life compared to single-sensor pacing, despite no measurable improvement in physical efficiency.
Supports dual-sensor pacing for quality-of-life gains in chronotropic incompetence; extends single-sensor evidence without physical efficiency benefit.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the use of a double sensor gives additional benefits for patients in improving physical efficiency as well as quality of life (QoL) as compared to the accelerometer sensor alone. METHODS AND RESULTS: The presented research is a prospective, randomized, single-blind clinical trial. Double-sensor (accelerometer and minute-ventilation) pacemakers (Guidant, Pulsar Max DR) were implanted in 20 patients with sinus node dysfunction (SND) and chronotropic incompetence. After randomization, patients were placed in one of two groups: 1, only the accelerometer sensor was activated; 2, both sensors were activated. After a 3-month follow-up, an initial cardio-pulmonary exercise test was performed, after which the patients were placed in the opposite group for a further 3 months. Finally, the second tests were performed. In 75% of the patients an improvement in QoL was observed in the double-sensor group (P = 0.0242) when compared with the single-sensor group. The addition of a ventilating sensor had no influence on the duration of exercise test (A: 11 +/- 3.19 vs. B: 11 +/- 2.92 P = 1.0000). The parameters of cardio-pulmonary exercise tests recorded in situations A and B before exertion, and 6 minutes after exertion were not statistically different. CONCLUSION: The use of double-sensor pacemakers does not improve physical efficiency; however, it does improve QoL.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piłat et al. (2008) conducted an RCT in Sinus node dysfunction (SND) and chronotropic incompetence (n=20). Double-sensor (accelerometer and minute-ventilation) pacemaker activation vs. Single-sensor (accelerometer only) pacemaker activation was evaluated on Improvement in quality of life (QoL) (p=0.0242). Double-sensor pacemaker activation improved quality of life in 75% of patients compared to single-sensor activation (P=0.0242), but did not improve physical efficiency.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: