Is a dual-sensor pacemaker appropriate in patients with sino-atrial disease? Results from the DUSISLOG study

Luigi Padeletti, Paolo Pieragnoli, Luigi Di Biase, Andrea Colella, Maurizio Landolina, Eugenio Moro, Serafino Orazi, Alfredo Vicentini, Giampiero Maglia, Orazio Pensabene, Giovanni Raciti, S. Serge Barold

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)34-40
Number of pages7
JournalPACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume29
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ventilation
Emblems and Insignia
Quality of Life
Exercise
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
Multicenter Studies
Equipment and Supplies
Population
Walk Test

Keywords

  • Atrial chronotropic incompetence
  • Cardiac pacemaker
  • Cardiac pacing
  • Rate-responsive pacing
  • Sick sinus syndrome

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Is a dual-sensor pacemaker appropriate in patients with sino-atrial disease? Results from the DUSISLOG study. / Padeletti, Luigi; Pieragnoli, Paolo; Di Biase, Luigi; Colella, Andrea; Landolina, Maurizio; Moro, Eugenio; Orazi, Serafino; Vicentini, Alfredo; Maglia, Giampiero; Pensabene, Orazio; Raciti, Giovanni; Barold, S. Serge.

In: PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, Vol. 29, No. 1, 01.2006, p. 34-40.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Padeletti, L, Pieragnoli, P, Di Biase, L, Colella, A, Landolina, M, Moro, E, Orazi, S, Vicentini, A, Maglia, G, Pensabene, O, Raciti, G & Barold, SS 2006, 'Is a dual-sensor pacemaker appropriate in patients with sino-atrial disease? Results from the DUSISLOG study', PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 34-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00301.x
Padeletti, Luigi ; Pieragnoli, Paolo ; Di Biase, Luigi ; Colella, Andrea ; Landolina, Maurizio ; Moro, Eugenio ; Orazi, Serafino ; Vicentini, Alfredo ; Maglia, Giampiero ; Pensabene, Orazio ; Raciti, Giovanni ; Barold, S. Serge. / Is a dual-sensor pacemaker appropriate in patients with sino-atrial disease? Results from the DUSISLOG study. In: PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. 2006 ; Vol. 29, No. 1. pp. 34-40.
@article{67399655832149c6b7f0374b23d071d9,
title = "Is a dual-sensor pacemaker appropriate in patients with sino-atrial disease? Results from the DUSISLOG study",
abstract = "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{\circledR}, 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.",
keywords = "Atrial chronotropic incompetence, Cardiac pacemaker, Cardiac pacing, Rate-responsive pacing, Sick sinus syndrome",
author = "Luigi Padeletti and Paolo Pieragnoli and {Di Biase}, Luigi and Andrea Colella and Maurizio Landolina and Eugenio Moro and Serafino Orazi and Alfredo Vicentini and Giampiero Maglia and Orazio Pensabene and Giovanni Raciti and Barold, {S. Serge}",
year = "2006",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00301.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "34--40",
journal = "PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology",
issn = "0147-8389",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is a dual-sensor pacemaker appropriate in patients with sino-atrial disease? Results from the DUSISLOG study

AU - Padeletti, Luigi

AU - Pieragnoli, Paolo

AU - Di Biase, Luigi

AU - Colella, Andrea

AU - Landolina, Maurizio

AU - Moro, Eugenio

AU - Orazi, Serafino

AU - Vicentini, Alfredo

AU - Maglia, Giampiero

AU - Pensabene, Orazio

AU - Raciti, Giovanni

AU - Barold, S. Serge

PY - 2006/1

Y1 - 2006/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Atrial chronotropic incompetence

KW - Cardiac pacemaker

KW - Cardiac pacing

KW - Rate-responsive pacing

KW - Sick sinus syndrome

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645120136&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33645120136&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00301.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00301.x

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 34

EP - 40

JO - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

JF - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

SN - 0147-8389

IS - 1

ER -