RESUMEN
AIM: Young patients with operated complex congenital heart defects (CHD) often develop sinus node dysfunction (SND) requiring permanent pacing with rate-responsive function. Activity-driven sensors cannot account for nonmovement stress and cannot modulate heart rate physiologically. Closed Loop Stimulation (CLS, Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) is a physiological rate-responsive pacemaker based on the indirect measure of ventricular contractility. No data are available on the effects of such pacing strategy in young patients. METHODS: We report a series of nine patients with CHD and SND who underwent single-chamber CLS-atrial pacing with endocardial or epicardial lead. During the first 30 days, the pacemaker was programmed in AAI pacing mode and then was switched to CLS-atrial pacing mode. An in-hospital control was scheduled 1-2 months later to evaluate the CLS response to neurovegetative stresses (i.e., nonmovement stress [Stroop color test, handgrip] and exercise stress test) and Holter monitor. CLS pacing was compared with rate-responsive accelerometer-driven pacing (AAIR). RESULTS: At telemetric interrogation, CLS pacing showed a more physiological pattern of 24-h heart rate trends than accelerometer sensors. The data obtained during nonmovement/exercise stress demonstrated a physiological increase in the pacing rate with CLS, in synergy with spontaneous events. The accelerometer sensor histogram, during nonmovement stress, showed a "nonresponse" behavior (only lower rate events), and during exercise test showed most events in lower rate range. Holter monitoring showed increase of average and maximum heart rate compared with AAIR. CONCLUSION: In young CHD patients, endocardial/epicardial CLS-atrial pacing demonstrated a physiological response of heart rate to neurovegetative and physical stresses.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Energy demand of remote monitoring in cardiac implantable electronic devices has never been investigated. Biotronik Home Monitoring (HM) is characterized by daily transmissions that may affect longevity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to retrospectively compare longevity of a specific dual-chamber pacemaker model in patients with HM on and patients with HM off. METHODS: Hospital files of 201 patients (mean age 87 ± 10 years, 78 men) who had received a Biotronik Cylos DR-T pacemaker between April 2006 and May 2010 for standard indication were reviewed. In 134 patients (67%), HM was activated. The primary end point was device replacement due to battery depletion. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 56.4 months (interquartile range 41.8-65.2 months). The estimated device longevity was 71.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.1-72.3 months) in the HM-on group and 60.4 months (CI 55.9-65.1 months) in the HM-off group (P < .0001). The frequency of inhospital visits with significant device reprogramming was higher in the HM-on group than in the HM-off group (33.3% vs 25.0%, respectively; P = .03). Lower ventricular pulse amplitude (2.3 ± 0.4 V vs 2.7 ± 0.5 V; P < .0001) and pacing percentage (49% ± 38% vs 64% ± 38%; P = .02), both calculated as time-weighted averages, were observed with HM on as compared with HM off. Patient attrition was significantly lower in the HM-on group (9.7%; 95% CI 3.0%-28.7%) than in the HM-off group (45.6%; 95% CI 30.3%-64.3%) (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: In normal practice, energy demand of HM, if present, was overshadowed by programming optimization likely favored by continuous monitoring. Pacemakers controlled remotely with HM showed an 11-month longer longevity. Patient retention was superior.