These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Clinical and quality of life comparison of accelerometer, piezoelectric crystal, and blended sensors in DDDR-paced patients with sinus node dysfunction in the mode selection trial (MOST).
    Author: Shukla HH, Flaker GC, Hellkamp AS, James EA, Lee KL, Goldman L, Orav EJ, Lamas GA.
    Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 2005 Aug; 28(8):762-70. PubMed ID: 16105001.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Permanent pacemakers are capable of increasing heart rate in response to physical activity by a variety of sensors including accelerometers, piezoelectric crystals, or blended sensors. The impact of these different physiologic sensors on cardiovascular events and quality of life is not known. METHODS: Of 2,010 patients randomized in the Mode Selection Trial, 1,245 patients were selected with the most commonly used pacemakers with these three sensors. Clinical characteristics and quality of life were compared between groups at baseline, 3 months, and then yearly. RESULTS: There were 449 patients with an accelerometer sensor device, 682 with a piezoelectric sensor, and 114 with a blended sensor. The groups were similar in terms of age (mean 74 years), gender, and cardiac risk factors but differences existed in weight, heart rate, mitral regurgitation, revascularization history, and drug therapy. The median ventricular pacing frequency was 80% (25th, 75th percentiles 42, 97). After a median follow-up of 33.1 months, the risk of death, heart failure hospitalization, atrial fibrillation, and the combined endpoint of mortality and stroke was not significantly different between the sensor types, after adjustment for baseline differences. Quality of life analyses demonstrated that patients with blended sensors had significantly worse (P < 0.01) physical function than did patients with the other two sensor systems. Moreover, patients receiving blended sensors had the poorest absolute scores, without reaching statistical significance, on 9 of 13 quality of life measures after adjusting for differences in the groups. CONCLUSION: We found no significant differences among the three most utilized sensors in clinical endpoints. Those patients who received blended sensors had worse physical function quality of life scores. However, clinical selection of the most sophisticated sensor for the most ill patients cannot be excluded as an explanation of these results.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]