An integrated dual sensor system automatically optimized by target rate histogram

Inappropriate rate response in a leadless pacemaker due to automatic rate profile optimization

A three-axis accelerometer sensor is incorporated in a leadless pacemaker (Micra^TM , Medtronic^Inc ) for rate adaptation. Three sensor setpoints at lower rate (LR), activity of daily living rate (ADLR), and upper rate (UR) are used to convert detected acceleration to a desired rate response. We describe inappropriate rate acceleration at rest and during chest physiotherapy in a sedentary elderly patient with leadless pacemaker. The underlying mechanism and various programming options are discussed.

Is a Dual-Sensor Pacemaker Appropriate in Patients with Sino-Atrial Disease? Results from the DUSISLOG Study

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.

Pacemaker automaticity

The automated measurement of the main electrical parameters of pacemakers, such as battery voltage, current drain, pacing impedance, sensing levels, and pacing thresholds enables a continuous monitoring of the adequate functioning of the implanted device. New technologies in device interrogation, data transfer, and patient alert functions will enhance therapy safety significantly by the immediate detection of all, including transient, device malfunctions. The introduction of this technology will result in major changes in follow-up of patients with pacemakers. Technically we are very close to the goal of a fully automated pacemaker, although clinical acceptance lags behind. Clinical studies are necessary to demonstrate the beneficial effects of automated device functions, with regard to the main rationales for pacemaker automatization: increased patient safety, improved quality of life, and an improvement in the cost-benefit ratio in pacemaker therapy.

Current status of dual-sensor pacemaker systems for correction of chronotropic incompetence

Rate-adaptive pacing has been shown to improve exercise capacity in patients with chronotropic incompetence. However, all sensors used to adapt the pacing rate to meet metabolic demands show typical limitations. To overcome these, concepts using 2 sensors for rate adaptation have been developed, combining an unspecific but fast-reacting sensor with a specific but slower-reacting one. Clinical performance of these dual-sensor pacemaker systems is related to 3 factors: (1) choice of sensors, (2) mode of sensor integration, and (3) algorithms for automatic optimization of the integrated sensor response. Clinical studies using dual-sensor rate-adaptive pacing systems have demonstrated their ability to mimic normal sinus rate during different forms of exercise, avoiding inadequate or delayed rate response. However, to avoid combining the disadvantages of both single sensors, dual-sensor rate-adaptive systems need effective automatic algorithms. Sensor cross-check should be quick and combine fast reactivity and high specificity, particularly so as to prevent overpacing. Programmable rate response-related parameters should continuously be optimized. The pacemaker should provide diagnostic facilities during exercise to simulate short-term sensor performance at different settings and memory functions to evaluate long-term sensor performance. Assessment and eventually deactivation of all automatic functions should be possible. Finally, even with automatic algorithms for sensor optimization, maximal benefit from a dual-sensor system can only be achieved if the physician is able to identify and correct pitfalls of each system.

Developments in sensor-driven pacing

This article reviews the recent major developments in the field of rate adaptive pacing. Including, the improved instrumentation of existing sensors, the use of multiple sensors to enhance sensor specificity or sensitivity, and the automation of sensor calibration. The physiologic benefits and programming of rate adaptive pacing are reviewed.

Automated pacemaker function

Pacemakers have used automated functions since the introduction of the inhibited mode more than 30 years ago. Currently, virtually all aspects of pacemaker function are subject to automated control, including automated threshold tracking and sensitivity adjustment. These features are designed to enhance patient safety and quality of life, extend battery life, and simplify pacemaker programming and follow-up for health care providers. Many of these automated algorithms are still in evolution and the clinical benefits are not clearly demonstrated for all functions. Although pacemaker function will become increasingly automated, these features should not be accepted uncritically and without demonstrating benefit to the pacemaker patient.

How smart should pacemakers Be?

The concept of the "smart" pacemaker has been continuously changing during 40 years of progress in technology. When we talk today about smart pacemakers, it means optimal treatment, diagnosis, and follow-up for patients fitting the current indications for pacemakers. So what is smart today becomes accepted as "state of the art" tomorrow. Originally, implantable pacemakers were developed to save lives from prolonged episodes of bradycardia and/or complete heart block. Now, in addition, they improve quality of life via numerous different functions acting under specific conditions, thanks to the introduction of microprocessors. The devices have become smaller, with the miniaturization of the electrical components, without compromising longevity. Nevertheless, there are still some unmatched objectives for these devices, for example, the optimization of cardiac output and the management of atrial arrhythmias in dual-chamber devices. Furthermore, indications continue to evolve, which in turn require new, additional functions. These functions are often very complex, necessitating computerized programming to simplify application. In addition, the follow-up of these devices is time-consuming, as appropriate system performance has to be regularly monitored. A great many of these functions could be automatically performed and documented, thus enabling physicians and paramedical staff to avoid losing time with routine control procedures. In addition, modern pacemakers offer extensive diagnostic functions to help diagnose patient symptoms and pacemaker system problems. Different types of data are available, and their presentation differs from one company to the other. This huge amount of data can only be managed with automatic diagnostic functions. Thus, the smart pacemaker of the near future should offer high flexibility to permit easy programming of available therapies and follow-up, and extensive, easily comprehensible diagnostic functions.