Premium
Telemetry Guided Pacemaker Programming: Impact of Output Amplitude and the Use of Low Threshold Leads on Projected Pacemaker Longevity
Author(s) -
SCHWAAB BERNHARD,
FRÖHLIG GERD,
SCHWERDT HOLGER,
HEISEL ARMIN,
BERG MONIKA,
SCHIEFFER HERMANN
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.tb01123.x
Subject(s) - medicine , ventricular pacing , pulse generator , cardiology , amplitude , single chamber , atrium (architecture) , pulse amplitude modulation , anesthesia , pulse (music) , electrical engineering , voltage , atrial fibrillation , heart failure , physics , quantum mechanics , engineering
In a prospective study, a low threshold screw‐in electrode (Medtronic 5078, group I. n = 9) was compared to a conventional active fixation lead (Biotronik Y60BP, group II. n = 9) to investigate whether lower pacing thresholds really translate into longer projected service life of the pacemaker. The leads were implanted in the atrium and were connected to a dual chamber pacing system which included the same ventricular lead (Medtronic 5024) and the same pulse generator model (Intermedics 294–03) in both groups. Eighteen months after implantation, atrial and ventricular pacing thresholds were measured as the charge delivered per pulse [μC] at 0.5, 1.0. 1.5, 2.0, and 3.5 V, respectively. For chronic output programming in both channels, patients capturing at 0.5 V were set to 1.0 V, those capturing at 1.5 V were permanently programmed to 2.0 V with the double of the charge threshold as the safety margin for pacing (“safety charge”). A combination of atrial and ventricular output settings was optimal, if it resulted in minimum battery current drain [μA] as measured by pacemaker telemetry. In both groups, current consumption [μA] decreased significantly as output amplitude was decreased, exhibiting its lowest value at 1.0 V in either channel. All ventricular leads could be programmed to the optimum output amplitude of 1.0 V in groups 1 and 2. As the 2:1 “safety charge” values were almost identical, the ventricular channel essentially contributes the same amount to the battery drain of the pacing system in both groups. In the atrium, all patients of group 1 could be programmed to the optimum output amplitude of 1.0 V with an average pulse duration of 0.42 ± 0.15 ms. In group 2, however, all patients had to be programmed to 2.0 V with a mean pulse width of 0.52 ± 0.15 ms. With the atrial and ventricular output being optimized, the average battery drain of the whole pacing system was 12.19 ± 0.63 μA in group 1 versus 14.42 ± 0.32 μA in group 2 (P < 0.001). As patients were chronically programmed to these output settings, this difference translates into a clinically relevant gain in projected pacemaker longevity of 17 months or 18.3 % (121 ± 4 vs. 104 ± 2 months; P < 0.001). Thus, programming a 2:1 safety margin in terms of charge and optimizing the output parameters by real‐time telemetry of the battery current is a useful approach to reduce battery current drain. Making the most of modern lead technology with a different performance in only one channel of an otherwise identical DDD pacing system translates into a significant prolongation of projected pacemaker service life which is of great importance with the increasing awareness of health care expenditures. The gain in projected longevity is mainly due to the option of reducing the output amplitude which is still significantly beneficial well below the nominal voltage of the power source.