Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2006
Is a dual-sensor pacemaker appropriate in patients with sino-atrial disease? Results from the DUSISLOG study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Padeletti Luigi, Pieragnoli Paolo, Di Biase Luigi, Colella Andrea, Landolina Maurizio, Moro Eugenio, Orazi Serafino, Vicentini Alfredo, Maglia Giampiero, Pensabene Orazio, Raciti Giovanni, Barold S Serge
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Rate-responsive pacemakers (PMs) are often supplied with accelerometer (XL) and minute ventilation (MV) sensors to provide a physiologic rate response according to patient needs. No information is available about the real benefit of dual-sensor rate-responsive pacing on the daily life of patients.
METHODS: DUSISLOG (Dual Sensor vs Single Sensor comparison using patient activity LOGbook) is a two-arm prospective, randomized, multicenter study that enrolled 105 patients who received a rate-responsive PM (Insignia), Guidant Corp.). After 1 month of DDD pacing at 60 ppm lower rate, a single sensor (XL or MV, randomized) was activated for 3 months at the manufacturer's suggested nominal settings, followed by a 3-month period with dual sensors optimized with automatic response. During the last month of each period, the following data concerning patient physical activity were retrieved from PM diagnostics (Activity Log): mean percentage of physical activity, mean intensity of activity. Quality of life (QoL) scores and 6-minute walk test (WT) were also recorded.
RESULTS: Single-sensor rate-responsive pacing resulted in symptomatic benefit equally with XL and MV sensors while no additional benefit was found using dual sensor. In a subgroup analysis, patients (17%) with marked chronotropic incompetence and with 0% atrial sensing received benefits from single sensor with an additional advantage from sensor (QoL: +21 +/- 14% P < 0.05; WT: +17 +/- 7% P < 0.02).
CONCLUSION: In most patients with rate-responsive devices, a single sensor is sufficient to achieve a satisfactory rate response. A dual sensor combination and optimization provides an additional benefit only in a selected population with an advanced atrial chronotropic disease.
METHODS: DUSISLOG (Dual Sensor vs Single Sensor comparison using patient activity LOGbook) is a two-arm prospective, randomized, multicenter study that enrolled 105 patients who received a rate-responsive PM (Insignia), Guidant Corp.). After 1 month of DDD pacing at 60 ppm lower rate, a single sensor (XL or MV, randomized) was activated for 3 months at the manufacturer's suggested nominal settings, followed by a 3-month period with dual sensors optimized with automatic response. During the last month of each period, the following data concerning patient physical activity were retrieved from PM diagnostics (Activity Log): mean percentage of physical activity, mean intensity of activity. Quality of life (QoL) scores and 6-minute walk test (WT) were also recorded.
RESULTS: Single-sensor rate-responsive pacing resulted in symptomatic benefit equally with XL and MV sensors while no additional benefit was found using dual sensor. In a subgroup analysis, patients (17%) with marked chronotropic incompetence and with 0% atrial sensing received benefits from single sensor with an additional advantage from sensor (QoL: +21 +/- 14% P < 0.05; WT: +17 +/- 7% P < 0.02).
CONCLUSION: In most patients with rate-responsive devices, a single sensor is sufficient to achieve a satisfactory rate response. A dual sensor combination and optimization provides an additional benefit only in a selected population with an advanced atrial chronotropic disease.