Key result
Blended sensors significantly improve metabolic chronotropic response slopes over accelerometers alone in chronotropic incompetence.
Why the study?
Limited data exists regarding the relative benefit of a blended sensor versus an accelerometer alone in restoring chronotropic response in chronotropically incompetent pacemaker patients.
Does a blended sensor improve chronotropic response more than an accelerometer alone in pacemaker patients with chronotropic incompetence?
RCT (n=547)
Randomized
Does a blended sensor improve chronotropic response more than an accelerometer alone in pacemaker patients with chronotropic incompetence?
In pacemaker patients with chronotropic incompetence, a blended sensor (accelerometer and minute ventilation) restores chronotropic response more favorably than an accelerometer alone.
Supports blended sensors over accelerometers for chronotropic incompetence; extends RCT evidence on rate-adaptive pacing.
BACKGROUND: Adaptive rate sensors used in permanent pacemakers incorporate an accelerometer (XL) to increase heart rate with activity. Limited data exists regarding the relative benefit of a blended sensor (BS) (XL and minute ventilation) versus XL alone in restoring chronotropic response (CR) in chronotropically incompetent (CI) patients. METHODS: One thousand five hundred thirty-eight patients from the limiting chronotropic incompetence for pacemaker recipients (LIFE) study were implanted with a pacemaker and 1,256 patients had data collected at 1 month. Patients performed a treadmill test 1-month postimplant while programmed in nonrate responsive mode (DDD-60) to determine CI. Only patients who completed at least three exercise stages and achieved a peak perceived exertion >or=16 were included in the analyses. The metabolic chronotropic relationship (MCR) slope was used to evaluate CR in 547 patients. Patients were randomized to XL or BS with a conservative fixed rate response factor (XL = 8, MV = 4). CI patients performed a follow-up 6-month treadmill test. RESULTS: CI prevalence in this patient population (n = 547) was 34%. No differences in baseline characteristics existed between groups. Although both groups showed significant within-group improvements in MCR slope from 1 to 6 months (both P < 0.001), the BS group had a significantly higher MCR slope at 6 months compared to the XL group (P = 0.011). Improvement in quality of life (QOL) did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this general pacemaker population with CI, a BS programmed empirically restores CR more favorably than an XL sensor programmed nominally. Further studies are needed to determine if individual sensor optimization would lead to improvement in functional capacity, higher MCR slopes, and QOL.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coman et al. (2008) conducted an RCT in Chronotropic incompetence in pacemaker patients (n=547). Blended sensor (accelerometer and minute ventilation) vs. Accelerometer alone (fixed rate response factor XL = 8) was evaluated on Metabolic chronotropic relationship (MCR) slope at 6 months (p=0.011). In pacemaker patients with chronotropic incompetence, a blended sensor yielded a significantly higher metabolic chronotropic relationship slope at 6 months than an accelerometer alone (P=0.011).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: