Advertisement

Pacemaker Automaticity: Real Progress or Increased Complexity and Costs?

  • M. H. Schoenfeld
  • H. T. Markowitz
Conference paper

Abstract

Pacemaker automaticity may be defined as the “algorithmic regulation of pacer function based on patient conditions and pacemaker system conditions without the need for clinician input” [1]. Indeed, it does not represent a new concept. More than twenty years ago the “autodiagnostic pacemaker” was described as a device capable of detecting failure to capture and failure to sense, allowing for automatic adjustment of output voltage [2]. Demand pacing automatically adjusts and resets pacemaker timing based on endogenous rhythm. Pulse width stretching was an old concept whereby the pacemaker attempted to maintain constant energy: as battery voltage depleted, the pulse generator would increase pulse width so as to maintain a margin of safety relative to stimulation thresholds. “Regulated outputs” use regulator circuitry for the output voltage of pacing pulses to compensate for gradually decreasing battery voltage. Unipolar systems automatically reverted to asynchronous pacing when myopotentials were sensed so as to prevent undue inhibition of pacer output. “Power on reset” and related approaches allowed for the automatic detection of electromagnetic interference such as electrocautery and set the pacemaker to predetermined settings to prevent unintended setting of parameters by severe interference.

Keywords

Pace System Pacer Function Battery Depletion Automatic Change Atrial Refractory Period 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Schoenfeld MH, Markowitz HT (2000) Device follow-up in the age of automaticity. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 23:803–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auerbach AA, Furman S (1979) The autodiagnostic pacemaker. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2:58–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lau CP, Tai YT, Fong PC et al (1991) Atrial arrhythmia management with sensor controlled atrial refractory period and automatic mode switching in patients with minute ventilation sensing dual chamber rate adaptive pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 15:1504–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacquemart JF (1995) Autocapture: principe et intérêt du concept. Stimucoeur 23:259–262Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feld GK, Love CJ, Camerlo J et al (1992) A new pacemaker algorithm for continuous capture verification and automatic threshold determination: elimination of pacemaker afterpotential utilizing a triphasic charge balancing system. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 15:171–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernstein AD, Parsonnet V (1996) Survey of cardiac pacing and defibrillation in the United States in 1993. Am J Cardiol 78:187–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schoenfeld MH (1996) Follow-up of the pacemaker patient. In: Ellenbogen KA (ed) Cardiac pacing, 2nd edn. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, pp 456–500Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Byrd CL, Schwartz SJ, Gonzales M et al (1986) Pacemaker clinic evaluations: key to early identification of surgical problems. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 9:1259–1264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saliba BC, Ardesia RJ, John RM et al (1997) Predictors of fracture in the Accufix atrial “J” lead. Am J Cardiol 80:229–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldman BS, Newman D, Fraser J et al (1996) Management of intracardiac device recalls: a consensus conference. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 19:7–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kawanishi DT, Song S, Furman S et al (1996) Failure rate of leads, pulse generators, and programmers have not diminished over the last 20 years: formal monitoring of performance is still needed. BILITCH Registry and STIMAREC. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 19:1819–1823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blitzer ML, Marieb MA, Schoenfeld MH (2001) Inability to communicate with ICDs: an underreported failure mode. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 24:13–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schoenfeld MH (1992) Recommendations for implementation of a North American multicenter arrhythmia device/lead database. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 15:1632–1636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moller M, Arnsbo P (1996) Appraisal of pacing lead performance from the Danish Pacemaker Register. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 19:1327–1336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. H. Schoenfeld
    • 1
  • H. T. Markowitz
    • 2
  1. 1.Cardiac Electrophysiology and Pacer Laboratory, Hospital of Saint RaphaelYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Medtronic Inc.MinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations