Assessment of adaptive rate response provided by accelerometer, minute ventilation and dual sensor compared with normal sinus rhythm during exercise: a self-controlled study in chronotropically competent subjects.
- Author:
Yuanyuan CAO
;
Yiqun ZHANG
;
Yangang SU
1
;
Jin BAI
;
Wei WANG
;
Junbo GE
Author Information
- Publication Type:Clinical Trial
- MeSH: Adult; Aged; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial; methods; Exercise; physiology; Exercise Test; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pacemaker, Artificial
- From: Chinese Medical Journal 2015;128(1):25-31
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUNDDual sensor (DS) for rate adaption was supposed to be more physiological. To evaluate its superiority, the DS (accelerometer [ACC] and minute ventilation [MV]) and normal sinus rate response were compared in a self-controlled way during exercise treadmill testing.
METHODSThis self-controlled study was performed in atrioventricular block patients with normal sinus function who met the indications of pacemaker implant. Twenty-one patients came to the 1-month follow-up visit. Patients performed a treadmill test 1-month post implant while programmed in DDDR and sensor passive mode. For these patients, sensor response factors were left at default settings (ACC = 8, MV = 3) and sensor indicated rates (SIRs) for DS, ACC and MV sensor were retrieved from the pacemaker memories, along with measured sinus node (SN) rates from the beginning to 1-minute after the end of the treadmill test, and compared among study groups. Repeated measures analysis of variance and profile analysis, as well as variance analysis of randomized block designs, were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTSFifteen patients (15/21) were determined to be chronotropically competent. The mean differences between DS SIRs and intrinsic sinus rates during treadmill testing were smaller than those for ACC and MV sensor (mean difference between SIR and SN rate: ACC vs. SN, MV vs. SN, DS vs. SN, respectively, 34.84, 17.60, 16.15 beats/min), though no sensors could mimic sinus rates under the default settings for sensor response factor (ACC vs. SN P-adjusted < 0.001; MV vs. SN P-adjusted = 0.002; DS vs. SN P-adjusted = 0.005). However, both in the range of 1 st minute and first 3 minutes of exercise, only the DS SIR profile did not differ from sinus rates (P-adjusted = 0.09, 0.90, respectively).
CONCLUSIONSThe DS under default settings provides more physiological rate response during physical activity than the corresponding single sensors (ACC or MV sensor). Further study is needed to determine if individual optimization would further improve adaptive performance of the DS.
