Search

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.

BACKGROUND: Rhythm control is an important goal in the treatment of recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT). The PITAGORA study was a randomized trial in patients paced for sinus node disease (SND), designed to test the noninferiority of class IC antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to amiodarone in terms of a primary end point composed of death, permanent AT, cardiovascular hospitalization, atrial cardioversion, or AAD change. METHODS: Randomization was stratified to assign 2 patients to amiodarone and 2 patients to class IC AADs: propafenone or flecainide. One hundred seventy-six patients (46% men, 72 +/- 8 years) were enrolled. Device diagnostics continuously monitored AT recurrences and duration. RESULTS: In a mean follow-up of 20 +/- 9 months, the primary end point occurred in 23 (30.7%) of 75 class IC patients and in 28 (40.0%) of 70 amiodarone patients. The absolute difference in the end point incidence (-9.3%; 95% CI between 3.7% and -22.3%) confirmed the noninferiority of class IC to amiodarone (P = .007). Kaplan-Meier 1-year freedom from AT episodes >10 minutes, 1 day, and 7 days was 40%, 73%, and 91% for amiodarone and 28%, 78%, and 86% for class IC AADs (P = nonsignificant). CONCLUSIONS: In patients paced for SND and suffering from AT, class IC AADs proved not to be inferior to amiodarone in terms of the primary composite end point described or end points which were differently composed of mortality, efficacy, or AAD side effects. The AADs studied also showed similar results in terms of symptoms, quality of life, and freedom from AT recurrences.