Cardiac Pacing pp 463-468 | Cite as

Follow-up of Pacemaker Patients

  • Hugo E. Ector
  • Hilaire De Geest
Conference paper


The patient-pacemaker combination requires a specific follow-up with important technological implications. Capture and inhibition remain the basic functions to be assessed. Sophisticated devices are changing and complicating follow-up.

An appropriate rehabilitation of the patient will permit a return to a virtually normal life but vigorous exercise should be avoided. A subgroup of pacemaker dependent patients requires special attention. Potential hazards for paced patients are: ionizing radiation, interference by internal and external sources. Even damage or destruction of a pacemaker can occur. Interference of muscular origin is common in unipolar systems. It can be prevented by the adjustment of sensitivity or by the use of bipolar leads.

The actual reliability and longevity of lithium-powered pacemakers allow a convenient surveillance schedule.


Waveform Analysis Sick Sinus Syndrome Elective Replacement Bipolar Lead Escape Rhythm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lampadius MS: Pacemaker follow-up methods. In Thalen JH, Harthome JW, eds. To pace or not to pace. The Hague: Martinus Nyhoff, 1978; 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ector H, Haeseldonckx C, Staessen J, Vermeersch L, De Geest H: Relatiefbelang van impulsanalyse in de pacemakerkliniek. Tijdschr voor Geneeskunde 1980; 36: 305–308.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parsonnet V, Myers GH, Manhardt M: A review of pacemaker surveillance, 1978. In: Thalen HJ, Meere C, eds. Fundamentals of cardiac pacing. Martinus Nyhoff, 1979: 248–251.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Furman S: Transtelephone pacemaker monitoring. In: Thalen JH, Harthome JW, eds. To pace or not to pace. The Hague: Martinus Nyhoff, 1978; 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Panel discussion, In: Thalen HJ, Harthome JW, eds. To pace or not to pace. The Hague: Martinus Nyhoff, 1978; 196.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mond HG, Sloman JG: The malfunctioning pacemaker system. Pace 1981; 4: 49–60; 168–181; 304–312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lambrechts C, Ector H, De Geest H: Psychosociale aspecten van pacemakertherapie in België. Tijdschr voor Geneeskunde 1975; 31: 318–319.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grendahl H, Miller M, Kjekshus J: Overdrive suppression of implanted pacemakers in patients with A V block. Br Heart J 1978; 40: 106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Staessen J, Ector H, De Geest H: The underlying heart rhythm in patients with an artificial cardiac pacemaker. Pace 1982; 5: 801–807.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calfee RV: Therapeutic radiation and pacemakers. Pace 1982; 5: 160–161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Exworthy KW: Pacemaker Interference. In: Varriale P, Naclerio EA, eds. Cardiac Pacing Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1979: 325–348.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pannizzo F, Furman S: Pacemaker and patient response to the “Point of Sale” terminal as an actual and simulated electromagnetic interference source. Pace 1980; 3: 461–469.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Breivik K, Ohm OJ: Myopotential inhibition of unipolar QRS-inhibited (VVI) pacemakers, assessed by ambulatory Holter monitoring of the electrocardiogram. Pace 1980; 3: 470–478.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Symposium on electromagnetic interference of muscular origin. Pace 1982; 5: 1–37.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Secemsky SI, Hauser RG, Denes P, Edwards LM: Unipolar sensing abnormalities; incidence and clinical significance of skeletal muscle interference and undersensing in 228 patients. Pace 1982; 5: 10–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iesaka Y, Pinakatt T, Gosselin AJ, Lister JW: Bradycardia dependent ventricular tachycardia facilitated by myopotential inhibition of a VVI pacemaker. Pace 1982; 5: 23–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hauser RG: Bipolar leads for cardiac pacing in the 1980s: a reappraisal provoked by skeletal muscle interference. Pace 1982; 5: 34–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mugica J, Rollet M, Lazarus B, Henry L, Duconge R, Laxenaire P, Dubois MT: Long term behaviour of pacing electrodes, a twelve years survey (6032 cases). Stimucoeur 1982; 10: 272.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ector H, Emmerechts C, De Schepper S, De Geest H: Results of follow-up study in cardiac pacing at St-Raphael University Hospital in Leuven. Acta Cardiol 1976; suppl 21: 85–95.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Personal information from Lee Seligman, Intermedics, Inc, Freeport, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barold SS, Levine PA: Autointerference of demand pulse generators. Pace 1981; 4: 274–280.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. Dietrich Steinkopff Verlag, GmbH & Co. KG, Darmstadt 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugo E. Ector
    • 1
  • Hilaire De Geest
  1. 1.Department of CardiologyUniversity Clinic St.-RaphaelLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations