Key result
The ACT sensor mode provided the fastest rate of response with the shortest delay (13 sec vs 145 sec for QT and 41 sec for QT=ACT, P<0.05) and a smaller oxygen debt compared to other modes.
Why the study?
Does the activity (ACT) sensor mode improve rate response and oxygen uptake kinetics compared to QT or dual sensor modes in patients with multisensor rate adaptive pacemakers?
RCT (n=6)
Randomly programmed
Does the activity (ACT) sensor mode improve rate response and oxygen uptake kinetics compared to QT or dual sensor modes in patients with multisensor rate adaptive pacemakers?
Different sensor combinations in rate adaptive pacing result in significantly different rate response profiles and oxygen delivery, particularly during low-level exercise.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ACT sensor may warrant preference for rapid response in rate-adaptive pacing; extends sensor-mode comparisons in multisensor devices.
Although multisensor pacing may mitigate the inadequacy of rate adaptation in a single sensor system, the clinical role of multisensor driven rate adaptive pacing remains unclear. The cardiopulmonary performance of six patients (mean age 63.5 +/- 10 years) who had undergone the implant of combined QT and activity VVIR (Topaz) pacemakers was assessed during submaximal and maximal treadmill exercise with the rate response sensor randomly programmed to either single sensor mode, QT and activity (ACT), or dual sensor mode, with equal contribution of QT and ACT (QT = ACT). The rate of response, the proportionality, oxygen kinetics, and maximal exercise performance of the various sensor modes during exercise were measured and compared. The ACT sensor mode "overpaced" and the QT and QT = ACT sensor modes "underpaced" during the first three quartiles of exercise (P < 0.05). The ACT sensor mode also gave the fastest rate of response with the shortest delay (13 +/- 1.5 sec vs 145 +/- 58 sec and 41 +/- 17 sec, P < 0.05), time to 50% rate response (39 +/- 2.7 sec vs 275 +/- 48 sec and 203 +/- 40 sec, P < 0.05), and time to 90% of rate response (107 +/- 21 sec vs 375 +/- 34 sec and 347 +/- 34 sec, P < 0.05) and a smaller oxygen debt (0.87 +/- 0.16 L vs 1.10 +/- 0.2 L and 1.07 +/- 0.18 L, P < 0.05) compared to the QT and QT = ACT sensor modes, respectively. These differences were most significant at low exercise workloads. Thus, different sensor combinations result in different rate response profiles and oxygen delivery, especially during low level exercise.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
LEUNG et al. (1994) conducted an RCT in Patients with combined QT and activity VVIR pacemakers (n=6). Activity (ACT) sensor mode vs. QT sensor mode and dual sensor mode (QT = ACT) was evaluated on Delay in rate of response (p=<0.05). The ACT sensor mode provided the fastest rate of response with the shortest delay (13 sec vs 145 sec for QT and 41 sec for QT=ACT, P<0.05) and a smaller oxygen debt compared to other modes.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: