nach oben

Erschienen in:

25.09.2018 | Original articles

Individual programming of current multiprogrammable pacemakers

Still unsatisfactory?

verfasst von: T. Tischer, MD, A. Bebersdorf, C. Albrecht, J. Manhart, MD, E. Caglayan, MD, A. Öner, MD, H. Ince, MD, J. Ortak, MD, A. Büttner, MD, E. Safak, MD

Erschienen in: Herz | Ausgabe 6/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Pacemaker (PM) technology has developed tremendously in recent decades. We evaluated the extent of individual programming in current PMs.

Methods

Over a 7-month period in 2016, all deceased persons taken to the Rostock crematorium were prospectively screened for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and these were interrogated in situ. Programming of patient data, leads, and study parameters including mode, lower rate, upper tracking or sensor rate (UTSR), ventricular refractory time, sleeping function, hysteresis, and PM-mediated tachycardia intervention were analyzed and compared with delivery settings. Alterations in atrial/ventricular capture management and atrial/ventricular sensing assurance as well as changes in sensitivity and lead output were evaluated.

Results

We examined 2297 subjects, of whom 154 (6.7%) had CIEDs, with 125 (81.2%) being PMs. Finally, 72 (57.6%) PMs were eligible for analysis with an operation time of 31.0 ± 27.0 months. We excluded 28 (18.2%) implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), 51 (41%) PMs presenting elective replacement indicator (ERI), two (1.6%) PMs with programming to insufficient function prior to death, and the left ventricle parameter of one (1.4%) cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker (CRT-P); further one CIED (0.6%) was not contactable. PMs offered in mean 75.2% of study parameters thereof 88.0% were to adjust manually, whereof 49.3% stayed unchanged to delivery mode. Lead output, UTSR, lower rate, and mode were the most frequently changed parameters (>85.7%, 65.3%, 54.2%, and 52.8%, respectively) compared with unmodified ventricular refractory time and hysteresis (91.7% and. 85.4%, respectively); 2.8% of PMs had out-of-the-box settings. The most frequent personalized data were last (88.9%) and first name (73.6%), while atrial and ventricular serial lead numbers were rarely entered (18.2% and 23.4%, respectively).

Conclusion

The programming possibilities of PMs have advanced greatly. Nonetheless, improvements in individual PM programming are still needed as demonstrated by the findings in this study, e.g., PMs with manufacturer settings and lack of individual data.

Raatikainen MJ, Arnar DO, Zeppenfeld K, Merino JL, Kuck KH, Hindricks G (2015) Current trends in the use of cardiac implantable electronic devices and interventional electrophysiological procedures in the European Society of Cardiology member countries: 2015 report from the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace 17(Suppl 4):iv1–iv72. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euv265CrossRefPubMed

Wilkoff BL, Auricchio A, Brugada J, Cowie M, Ellenbogen KA, Gillis AM et al (2008) HRS/EHRA Expert Consensus on the Monitoring of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations: developed in partnership with the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA); and in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the Heart Failure Association of ESC (HFA), and the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA). Endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association (a registered branch of the ESC), the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association. Europace 10 (6):707–725. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eun122CrossRefPubMed

Carrault G, Mabo P (2014) Are electronic cardiac devices still evolving? Yearb Med Inform 9:128–134. https://doi.org/10.15265/IY-2014-0021CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Irnich W, Kramer E, Muller R (1991) The programming of cardiac pacemakers—wish and reality. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 116(16):601–605. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1063654CrossRefPubMed

Giammaria M, Quirino G, Alberio M, Parravicini U, Cipolla E, Rossetti G, Ruocco A, Senatore G, Rametta F, Pistelli P (2017) Automatic atrial capture device control in real-life practice: a multicenter experience. J Arrhythm 33(2):139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joa.2016.06.002CrossRefPubMed

Biffi M, Bertini M, Saporito D, Belotti G, Quartieri F, Piancastelli M, Pucci A, Boggian G, Mazzocca GF, Giorgi D, Diotallevi P, Diemberger I, Martignani C, Pancaldi S, Ziacchi M, Marcantoni L, Toselli T, Attala S, Iori M, Bottoni N, Argnani S, Tomasi C, Sassone B, Boriani G (2016) Automatic management of atrial and ventricular stimulation in a contemporary unselected population of pacemaker recipients: the ESSENTIAL Registry. Europace 18(10):1551–1560. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw021CrossRefPubMed

Boriani G, Rusconi L, Biffi M, Pavia L, Sassara M, Malfitano D, Bongiorni MG, Padeletti L, Filice I, Sanfelici D, Maffei P, Vicentini A, Branzi A (2006) Role of ventricular autocapture function in increasing longevity of DDDR pacemakers: a prospective study. Europace 8(3):216–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euj027CrossRefPubMed

Alings M, Vireca E, Bastian D, Wardeh AJ, Nimeth C, Tukkie R, Trinks S, Kainz W, Delaney C, Kaltofen G, Investigators AS (2011) Clinical use of automatic pacemaker algorithms: results of the AUTOMATICITY registry. Europace 13(7):976–983. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eur052CrossRefPubMed

Chiu CC, Vicente KJ, Buffo-Sequeira I, Hamilton RM, McCrindle BW (2004) Usability assessment of pacemaker programmers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 27(10):1388–1398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2004.00643.xCrossRefPubMed

10.

Udo EO, van Hemel NM, Zuithoff NP, Dijk WA, Hooijschuur CA, Doevendans PA, Moons KG (2013) Pacemaker follow-up: are the latest guidelines in line with modern pacemaker practice? Europace 15(2):243–251. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eus310CrossRefPubMed

11.

Ziacchi M, Palmisano P, Ammendola E, Dell’era G, Guerra F, Aquilani S, Aspromonte V, Boriani G, Accogli M, Del Giorno G, Occhetta E, Capucci A, Ricci RP, Maglia G, Biffi M, Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing (AIAC) (2017) Clinically guided pacemaker choice and setting: pacemaker expert programming study. Europace 19(9):1500–1507. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw256CrossRefPubMed

12.

Sinha SK, Chrispin J, Barth A, Rickard JJ, Spragg DD, Berger R, Calkins H, Tomaselli G, Marine JE (2017) Clinical recognition of pacemaker battery depletion and automatic reprogramming. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 40(8):969–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.13135CrossRefPubMed

13.

Ribeiro AL, Rincon LG, Oliveira BG, Mota CC, Pires MT (2001) Enhancing longevity of pacemakers through reprogramming. Underutilization and cost-effectiveness. Arq Bras Cardiol 76(6):437–444CrossRef

14.

Biffi M, Melissano D, Rossi P, Kaliska G, Havlicek A, Pelargonio G, Romero R, Guastaferro C, Menichelli M, Vireca E, Frisoni J, Boriani G, Malacky T (2014) The OPTI-MIND study: a prospective, observational study of pacemaker patients according to pacing modality and primary indications. Europace 16(5):689–697. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eut387CrossRefPubMed

15.

van Eck JW, van Hemel NM, de Voogt WG, Meeder JG, Spierenburg HA, Crommentuyn H, Keijzer R, Grobbee DE, Moons KG, FOLLOWPACE investigators (2008) Routine follow-up after pacemaker implantation: frequency, pacemaker programming and professionals in charge. Europace 10(7):832–837. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eun093CrossRefPubMed

16.

Chen KP, Xu G, Wu S, Tang B, Wang L, Zhang S, China PSI (2013) Clinical evaluation of pacemaker automatic capture management and atrioventricular interval extension algorithm. Europace 15(3):395–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eus309CrossRefPubMed

17.

Curila K, Smida J, Herman D, Osmancik P, Stros P, Zdarska J, Prochazkova R, Widimsky P (2017) Pacemaker reprogramming rarely needed after device replacement. Herz. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00059-017-4627-5CrossRefPubMed

18.

Biffi M, Bertini M, Mazzotti A, Gardini B, Mantovani V, Ziacchi M, Valzania C, Martignani C, Diemberger I, Boriani G (2011) Long-term RV threshold behavior by automated measurements: safety is the standpoint of pacemaker longevity! Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 34(1):89–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.02915.xCrossRefPubMed

19.

Palmisano P, Ziacchi M, Ammendola E, Dell’Era G, Guerra F, Aspromonte V, Boriani G, Nigro G, Occhetta E, Capucci A, Ricci RP, Maglia G, Biffi M, Accogli M, Accogli M (2018) Long-term progression of rhythm and conduction disturbances in pacemaker recipients: findings from the Pacemaker Expert Programming study. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 19(7):357–365. https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0000000000000673CrossRef

20.

Ureyen CM, Bas CY, Yuksel IO, Kus G, Cagirci G, Arslan S (2017) Should physicians instead of industry representatives be the main actor of cardiac implantable electronic device follow-up? (Super Follow-up). Anatol J Cardiol 18(1):23–30. https://doi.org/10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2017.7374CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Individual programming of current multiprogrammable pacemakers
Still unsatisfactory?
verfasst von: T. Tischer, MD
A. Bebersdorf
C. Albrecht
J. Manhart, MD
E. Caglayan, MD
A. Öner, MD
H. Ince, MD
J. Ortak, MD
A. Büttner, MD
E. Safak, MD
Publikationsdatum: 25.09.2018
Verlag: Springer Medizin
Erschienen in: Herz / Ausgabe 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-9937
Elektronische ISSN: 1615-6692
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00059-018-4753-8

Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

„Jeder Fall von plötzlichem Tod muss obduziert werden!“

17.05.2024 Plötzlicher Herztod Nachrichten

Ein signifikanter Anteil der Fälle von plötzlichem Herztod ist genetisch bedingt. Um ihre Verwandten vor diesem Schicksal zu bewahren, sollten jüngere Personen, die plötzlich unerwartet versterben, ausnahmslos einer Autopsie unterzogen werden.

Hirnblutung unter DOAK und VKA ähnlich bedrohlich

17.05.2024 Direkte orale Antikoagulanzien Nachrichten

Kommt es zu einer nichttraumatischen Hirnblutung, spielt es keine große Rolle, ob die Betroffenen zuvor direkt wirksame orale Antikoagulanzien oder Marcumar bekommen haben: Die Prognose ist ähnlich schlecht.

Schlechtere Vorhofflimmern-Prognose bei kleinem linken Ventrikel

17.05.2024 Vorhofflimmern Nachrichten

Nicht nur ein vergrößerter, sondern auch ein kleiner linker Ventrikel ist bei Vorhofflimmern mit einer erhöhten Komplikationsrate assoziiert. Der Zusammenhang besteht nach Daten aus China unabhängig von anderen Risikofaktoren.

Semaglutid bei Herzinsuffizienz: Wie erklärt sich die Wirksamkeit?

17.05.2024 Herzinsuffizienz Nachrichten

Bei adipösen Patienten mit Herzinsuffizienz des HFpEF-Phänotyps ist Semaglutid von symptomatischem Nutzen. Resultiert dieser Benefit allein aus der Gewichtsreduktion oder auch aus spezifischen Effekten auf die Herzinsuffizienz-Pathogenese? Eine neue Analyse gibt Aufschluss.

Update Kardiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2020

Clinical outcomes after tricuspid surgery

Therapeutisches Management des nichtvalvulären Vorhofflimmerns

Radial access first for PCI in acute coronary syndrome

Optimal antiplatelet and anticoagulation strategies in acute coronary syndromes

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin vs. atorvastatin in lowering LDL cholesterol