Key result
A dual chamber rate responsive pacing system showed stable performance at 1 year, with no significant differences in resting peak endocardial acceleration compared to 1 month (0.45 vs 0.41 g).
Why the study?
Does a dual chamber rate responsive pacing system driven by contractility maintain stable sensor performance and lead characteristics at 1 year?
Population
70 patients who participated in the Multicenter European Clinical Evaluation of a new dual chamber rate…
Comparison
Dual chamber rate responsive pacing system based… vs Performance at 1 month after implant
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
1 year
Authors
Loading...
Supports feasibility of long-term contractility sensing; leaves open randomized evaluation of clinical benefits.
Observational (n=70)
Yes
Does a dual chamber rate responsive pacing system driven by contractility maintain stable sensor performance and lead characteristics at 1 year?
The PEA signal detected by the new dual chamber rate responsive pacing system remained reliable and stable at 1 year without long-term complications.
Jacques Clémenty (1998) reported an observational. Dual chamber rate responsive pacing system based on peak endocardial acceleration vs. 1 month post-implant was evaluated on Peak endocardial acceleration (PEA) values at rest and during peak exercise. A dual chamber rate responsive pacing system showed stable performance at 1 year, with no significant differences in resting peak endocardial acceleration compared to 1 month (0.45 vs 0.41 g).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: