Premium
Vibration, Acceleration, Gravitation, and Movement: Activity Controlled Rate Adaptive Pacing During Treadmill Exercise Testing and Daily Life Activities
Author(s) -
CANDINAS RETO,
JAKOB MARKUS,
BUCKINGHAM THOMAS A.,
MATTMANN HEIDY,
AMANN F. WOLFGANG
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1997.tb03566.x
Subject(s) - treadmill , accelerometer , medicine , acceleration , simulation , physical medicine and rehabilitation , vibration , heart rate , physical therapy , computer science , acoustics , physics , classical mechanics , blood pressure , operating system
Activity‐based sensors for rate adaptive pacing have been available for several years and now include several different types: vibration; acceleration; gravitation; and movement. However, a systematic comparison evaluating the relative advantages and disadvantages of these various sensors has received little study. The purpose of the present study was to compare these sensor subtypes using treadmill testing and an outdoor test circuit, which simulated daily life activities and included both uphill and downhill walking. Pacemakers were strapped on the chest of healthy volunteers and connected to one channel of an ambulatory recording device, which also recorded the subject's intrinsic heart rate. The pacemakers were programmed using an initial treadmill test to standardize the rate responsive parameters for each device. Nine different pacemaker models were studied including 3 vibration‐based (Elite. Synchrony, Metros). 4 acceleration‐based (Relay, Excel, Ergos, Trilogy), 1 gravitational‐based (Swing), and 1 movement‐based (Sensorithm) device. All devices demonstrated a prompt rate response with casual walking on flat ground. The vibration‐, gravitational‐, and movement‐based pacemakers showed a pronounced rate decline during more strenuous work, e.g., walking uphill. This phenomenon was absent in the accelerometer‐based units. In particular, the vibration‐ and movement‐based units showed a higher rate with walking downhill compared to uphill. An optimally tuned rote behavior on the treadmill usually did not provide an optimal rate behavior during daily activities and there was a tendency to overstimulation during low workload. The development of the two newest sensors (gravitational and movement) did not result in an improved performance of rate response behavior. Overall, the accelerometer‐based pacemakers simulated or paralleled sinus rate behavior the most closely.