Clinical implications of elective replacement indicator setting changes in patients with dual-chamber pacemaker devices.
dual-chamber pacemaker
elective replacement indicator
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
ISSN: 1540-8167
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010756
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
06
05
2020
revised:
18
06
2020
accepted:
21
06
2020
pubmed:
17
7
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
entrez:
17
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study sought to determine if single-chamber operation and/or loss of rate response (RR) during elective replacement indicator (ERI) in patients with dual-chamber pacemakers lead to increased symptom burden, healthcare utilization, and atrial fibrillation (AF). Dual-chamber pacemakers often change from dual- to single-chamber pacing mode and/or lose RR functionality at ERI to preserve battery. Single-chamber pacing increases the incidence of heart failure, AF, and pacemaker syndrome suggesting these changes may be deleterious. A retrospective analysis of 700 patients was completed. Three comparisons were analyzed: Comparison 1: mode change and RR loss versus no change; Comparison 2: RR loss only versus no change; Comparison 3: mode change only versus no change (in patients with no RR programmed at baseline). In Comparison 1, 121 (46%) patients with setting changes experienced symptoms (most often dyspnea and fatigue/exercise intolerance) versus 3 (4%) without setting changes (p < .0001). Similar results were noted in Comparisons 2 and 3 (p = .0016 and p = .0001, respectively). In Comparison 1, patients with setting change sought provider contact more than patients without setting changes (p = .0001). A significant difference was not noted in Comparison 2 or 3. Overall 14 (2%) patients were hospitalized, all of whom had setting changes. Setting changes at ERI including a change from dual- to single-chamber pacing and/or loss of RR results in a significantly increased symptom burden and increased healthcare utilization.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
This study sought to determine if single-chamber operation and/or loss of rate response (RR) during elective replacement indicator (ERI) in patients with dual-chamber pacemakers lead to increased symptom burden, healthcare utilization, and atrial fibrillation (AF).
BACKGROUND
Dual-chamber pacemakers often change from dual- to single-chamber pacing mode and/or lose RR functionality at ERI to preserve battery. Single-chamber pacing increases the incidence of heart failure, AF, and pacemaker syndrome suggesting these changes may be deleterious.
METHODS
A retrospective analysis of 700 patients was completed. Three comparisons were analyzed: Comparison 1: mode change and RR loss versus no change; Comparison 2: RR loss only versus no change; Comparison 3: mode change only versus no change (in patients with no RR programmed at baseline).
RESULTS
In Comparison 1, 121 (46%) patients with setting changes experienced symptoms (most often dyspnea and fatigue/exercise intolerance) versus 3 (4%) without setting changes (p < .0001). Similar results were noted in Comparisons 2 and 3 (p = .0016 and p = .0001, respectively). In Comparison 1, patients with setting change sought provider contact more than patients without setting changes (p = .0001). A significant difference was not noted in Comparison 2 or 3. Overall 14 (2%) patients were hospitalized, all of whom had setting changes.
CONCLUSIONS
Setting changes at ERI including a change from dual- to single-chamber pacing and/or loss of RR results in a significantly increased symptom burden and increased healthcare utilization.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2704-2710Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Gillis AM, Russo AM, Ellenbogen KA, et al. HRS/ACCF expert consensus statement on pacemaker device and mode selection. Developed in partnership between the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9(8):1344-1365.
Hesselson AB, Parsonnet V, Bernstein AD, Bonavita GJ. Deleterious effects of long-term single-chamber ventricular pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome: the hidden benefits of dual-chamber pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19(7):1542-1549.
Nielsen JC, Kristensen L, Andersen HR, Mortensen PT, Pedersen OL, Pedersen AK. A randomized comparison of atrial and dual-chamber pacing in 177 consecutive patients with sick sinus syndrome: echocardiographic and clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(4):614-623.
Andersen HR, Thuesen L, Bagger JP, Vesterlund T, Thomsen PE. Prospective randomised trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing in sick-sinus syndrome. Lancet. 1994;344(8936):1523-1528.
Lamas GA, Lee KL, Sweeney MO, et al. Ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing for sinus-node dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(24):1854-1862.
Farmer DM, Estes NAM, Link MS. New concepts in pacemaker syndrome. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2004;4(4):195-200.
Sinha SK, Carlson D, Chrispin J, et al. The Symptoms and Clinical events associated with Automatic Reprogramming (SCARE) at replacement notification study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;41:1611-1618.