Why the study?
Does programming of pulse generators improve pacing system malfunction without surgical revision in patients with pacemakers?
Does programming of pulse generators improve pacing system malfunction without surgical revision in patients with pacemakers?
Programmable pulse generators are effective for non-surgical correction of isolated pacing or sensing malfunctions, though they cannot substitute for proper lead placement.
Programming may avoid revision for isolated malfunctions; extends observations on programmable generators but leaves broader applicability open.
The value of programmable pulse generators for correcting pacing system malfunction without surgical revision was assessed in 293 patients. Twenty-five patients (8.5%) developed malfunctions from one day to 38 months after implant. Of these, 16 or 64% were successfully managed by programming alone, while nine patients required lead repositioning or a new lead. The majority (75%) of isolated pacing and sensing malfunctions were corrected by programming, but programming restored normal pacing function in only one of five patients who had combined sensing and pacing malfunctions which appeared early after pacemaker insertion. We conclude that programmable pulse generators are particularly useful for managing isolated pacing or sensing malfunctions. However, programmability is not a substitute for careful lead placement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Billhardt et al. (1982) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: