Premium
Scoring Method for Assessing Rate Adaptive Pacemakers: Application to Two Different Activity Sensors
Author(s) -
GARRIGUE STÉPHANE,
CHAIX CHRISTOPHE,
GENCEL LAURENT,
JAÏS PIERRE,
DARTIGUES JEANFRANCOIS,
HAÏSSAGUERRE MICHEL,
CLÆMENTY JACQUES
Publication year - 1998
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.1540-8159.1998.tb00092.x
Subject(s) - medicine , stairs , heart rate , concordance , cardiology , stair climbing , physical therapy , physical medicine and rehabilitation , blood pressure , civil engineering , engineering
To optimize programming of rate adaptive pacemakers (RAPs), we explored a new mathematical method to assess the performance of RAPs during daily‐life tests, using customized Windows‐based software. By stepwise discriminant analysis and linear regression, this method allows calculation of the acceleration and deceleration capacity of pacemakers and their general behavior during effort and recovery phases. Twenty‐three patients (10 females and 13 males; 68 ± 8 years) with chronic atrial fibrillation and a slow ventricular response were evaluated. They randomly received an accelerom‐eter‐controlled VVIR Dash Intermedics pacemaker (10 patients) or a vibration piezoelectric‐controlled WIR Sensolog III Siemens pacemaker (13 patients). All patients underwent the same test protocol: 6 minutes walking, 1.5 minutes climbing stairs, 1.5 minutes descending stairs, and 0.5 minutes sit‐ups. By definition, the pacemaker responsiveness slope was programmed so that the heart rate response of paced patients during the walking test corresponded best to that of healthy controls. The slope was left unchanged for the other tests. We considered four scores: an acceleration score (EA score), an effort rate score (ER score), a deceleration score (RD score), and a recovery rate score (RR score). Scores ranged from 10 (hypochronotropic behavior of the pacemaker) to +10 (hyperchronotropic behavior), based on daily‐life tests of 15 healthy controls (7 females and 8 males, 65 ± 9 years). A score of 0 represented exact concordance with healthy controls. During stair descent, the Sensolog III produced excessive acceleration (EA score =+2.9 ± 1.1) compared to: (1) stair climbing (EA score =−4.0 ± 1.9; P = 0.01, with the same pacemaker); and (2) the Dash (+1.8 ± 1.9; P = 0.04) and healthy controls (P = 0.02). The sit‐up tests revealed a hypochronotropic response of both pacemakers compared to healthy controls, with a larger difference for the Sensolog III (EA score =−2.0 ± 5.8; P = 0.04; RD score =−6.8 ± 3.8; P = 0.02). We conclude that activity‐driven pacemakers can accommodate brief activities, except for isovolumetric exercise such as sit‐ups. During daily activities, accelerometer‐driven pacemakers seem to provide a heart rate response closer to that of healthy controls. Our new mathematical analysis is a simple and reproducible method for evaluating and quantifying the efficacy of any sensor‐driven pacemaker.