Volume 26, Issue 1p2 pp. 225-228

Automatic Sensor Algorithms Expedite Pacemaker Follow-ups

DEMO KLONIS

DEMO KLONIS

LaBette County Medical Center, Parsons, Kansas

Search for more papers by this author
XIAOZHENG ZHANG

XIAOZHENG ZHANG

St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, California

Search for more papers by this author
UMESH PATEL

UMESH PATEL

Lakeview Regional Medical Center, Covington, Louisiana

Search for more papers by this author
SAJAD GULAMHUSEIN

SAJAD GULAMHUSEIN

Grey Nuns Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
JAGDISH PATEL

JAGDISH PATEL

St. Catherine, Chicago, Illinois

Search for more papers by this author
HANDRE HURWIT

HANDRE HURWIT

Parkway Medical Center, North Miami Beach, Florida

Search for more papers by this author
DOROTHY BANISH

DOROTHY BANISH

Lakeview Regional Medical Center, Covington, Louisiana

Search for more papers by this author
DAVE MARCO

DAVE MARCO

St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, California

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 28 March 2003
Citations: 1
Address for reprints: Demo Klonis, M.D., Labette County Medical Center, 1902 S. US Hwy 59, Parsons, KS 67357. Fax: (620) 421-5309; e-mail: [email protected]

This study was supported by St. Jude Medical

Abstract

KLONIS, D., et al.: Automatic Sensor Algorithms Expedite Pacemaker Follow-ups. Objective: Automatic algorithms can be used to optimize settings and reduce the duration of pacemaker (PM) clinical follow-up. Methods: This study prospectively evaluated 87 patients ( 74.2 ± 10.7 years old, 52% men) who received PM with the Autoslope algorithm. Patients randomized to the manual group (group M, n = 43 ) performed a walk test and used sensor-indicated rate histograms to adjust the sensor, while in the automatic group (group A, n = 44 ) the sensor was automatically adjusted by the Autoslope. The patients were followed for 6 months. Follow-up time required for device interrogation and optimal sensor set-up, and the number of sensor parameters reprogramming were recorded. Changes in the patients' activity level were also evaluated. Results: Group A required significantly less follow-up time than group M ( 9.4 ± 5.7 min vs 13.5 ± 8.5 min, P = 0.0002 ). The average number of sensor parameters reprogrammed during visits was significantly lower in group A than M (0.6 ± 0.9 vs 0.9 ± 1.3, P = 0.048) . Threshold was adjusted 34.4% of the time in the sensor evaluations in group M versus 12.9% in group A (P = 0.0004). Although more patients in group A reported being more active, the changes in patients' activity level did not lead to increasing sensor setup time or number of parameter reprogramming in either group. Conclusions: Auto sensor adjustment required less time during routine PM clinical follow-up by reducing steps needed for manual sensor threshold adjustment.(PACE 2003; 26[Pt. II]:225–228)

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.