Reliability of the Evoked Response in Determining the Paced Ventricular Rate and Performance of the QT or Rate Responsive (TX) Pacemaker

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The TX pacemaker uses a conventional transvenous electrode to sense T‐waves of paced ventricular complexes and it adapts the pacing rate to varying physioiogical demands by responding to changes in the QT or, more correctly, the stimulus artifact‐to‐T‐wave (stimulus‐T) interval. This pacing system was assessed in 13 patients. The relation between heart rate and stimulus‐T interval and the effect of programming on the performance of this pacemaker were studied on several occasions in each patient. Treadmill exercise performance during TX pacing mode was compared with atrial synchronized ventricular (VAT) and asynchronous ventricular demand (VOO and VVI—70 beats per minute) pacing modes. T‐wave sensing problems arose in three patients. In one. this was overcome by reducing the pulse amplitude from 5.0 to 2.5 V. In another patient, spontaneous recovery of T‐wave sensing occurred 5 months after pacemaker implantation. T‐wave sensing deteriorated with the passage of time in most patients. Satisfactory rate response as assessed by treadmill exercise testing and Holter monitoring was achieved in 12 patients through adjustments of two programmable parameters: the slope that defines the alteration in heart rate in response to a millisecond change in stimulus‐T interval and the “sensing window” that is the interval during which T‐waves can be sensed and a rate response is possible. Exercise performance was significantly better during rate responsive pacing (TX) mode as compared with VVI pacing but was comparable to that during VAT pacing. The resting heart rate/stimulus‐T interval can be described by the following linear regression equation; stimulus‐T interval = 466 – 1.68 × paced‐rate, r2=–0.62. This relation, however, was subject to wide inter‐ and intra‐patient variation. Consequently, given identical programmed parameters and exercise protocol, the chronotropic response differed significantly from patient to patient and in the same patient from one occasion to another. Our results show that a physiologically beneficial chronotropic response can be achieved in most patients. However, reprogramming, based on results of exercise tests and Holter monitoring, may be necessary to adjust for changes in T‐wave sensing and the heart rate/stimulus‐T interval relation and, thus to ensure that the pacemaker continues to function optimally.