Key result
SvO2-driven pacing demonstrated a more physiological rate response to daily activities compared to activity sensing, though it achieved 90% target rate slower (124 vs 77 seconds; P<0.02).
Why the study?
Does SvO2-driven rate adaptive pacing improve chronotropic response during daily activities and exercise compared to activity-sensing pacing in patients with sinoatrial disease?
Does SvO2-driven rate adaptive pacing improve chronotropic response during daily activities and exercise compared to activity-sensing pacing in patients with sinoatrial disease?
p-value: p=<0.02
SvO2-driven rate adaptive pacing provides a more physiological chronotropic response to activities of daily living compared to standard activity sensing, despite initial overpacing during early exercise.
May support SvO2 sensors for physiological rate response; hypothesis-generating in one case and requires prospective trials before adoption.
Central venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) closely reflects cardiac output and tissue oxygen consumption. In the absence of an adequate chronotropic response during exercise, SvO2 will decrease and the extent of desaturation may be used as a parameter for rate adaptive cardiac pacing. Eight patients with sinoatrial disease received a DDDR pacemaker capable of DDDR pacing by sensing either SvO2 or piezoelectric detected body movement. Both sensors were programmed to attain a rate of about 100 beats/min during walking, and with the lower and upper rates set at 50% and 90% of age predicted maximum, respectively. Chronotropic behavior of the two sensors were compared in the DDD mode with measurement of sensor responses, during everyday activities (walking, stair climbing, postural changes, and physiological stresses) and at each quartile of workload during a continuous treadmill exercise test. During walking at 2.5 mph, both sensors showed no significant difference in delay time (both react within 15 secs) or half-time (SvO2 = 36 +/- 12 sec and activity 24 +/- 3 sec; P = NS), although SvO2 driven pacing achieved 90% target rate response slower than activity sensing (124 +/- 16 sec vs 77 +/- 10 sec; P < 0.02). SvO2 pacing was associated with a more physiological rate response during walking upslope (68 +/- 12 beats/min vs 57 +/- 10 beats/min; P < 0.05), ascending stairs (59 +/- 10 beats/min vs 31 +/- 6 beats/min; P < 0.05), and standing (34 +/- 7 beats/min vs 9 +/- 2 beats/min; P < 0.05). The SvO2 sensor significantly overpaced in the first quartile of exercise (51.8 +/- 25.6% in excess of heart rate expected from workload), but the rate was within 20% of expected for the remainder of exercise. "Underpacing" was observed with the activity sensor at the higher workload. In conclusion, the SvO2 sensor demonstrated a more physiological response to activities of daily living compared with the activity sensor. Using a quantitative method, the speed of onset of rate response of the SvO2 sensor was comparable to activity sensing, and was more proportional in rate response. Significant overpacing occurs at the beginning of exercise during SvO2 driven pacing, which may be improved with the use of a curvilinear algorithm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lau et al. (1994) studied sinoatrial disease (n=8). SvO2-driven pacing vs. Activity-sensing pacing (piezoelectric detected body movement) was evaluated on Time to achieve 90% target rate response during walking (p=<0.02). SvO2-driven pacing demonstrated a more physiological rate response to daily activities compared to activity sensing, though it achieved 90% target rate slower (124 vs 77 seconds; P<0.02).