Back to Authors

Neutzling, Lori B.

Mayo Clinic

St. Cloud Hospital

Citations 1

Clinical implications of elective replacement indicator setting changes in patients with dual‐chamber pacemaker devices
Phillips, Kari A. , Ponamgi, Shiva , Mundell, Benjamin F. , Krushelnytskyy, Mykhaylo , Li, Zhuo , Rea, Robert F., Deshmukh, Abhishek , Espinosa, Raúl E. , Osborn, Michael J., Friedman, Paul A. , Mulpuru, Siva K. , Cha, Yong‐Mei , Neutzling, Lori B., Munger, Thomas M. , Kancharla, Krishna , Asirvatham, Samuel J. , Mundell, Benjamin, Rea, Robert, Osborn, Michael , Friedman, Paul A , Mulpuru, Siva K , Cha, Yong-Mei , Munger, Thomas, Asirvatham, Samuel J , McLeod, Christopher J.

Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology | July 16, 2020 | Volume: 31 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 2704-2710

10.1111/jce.14677 Get It

AbstractObjectiveThis study sought to determine if single‐chamber operation and/or loss of rate response (RR) during elective replacement indicator (ERI) in patients with dual‐chamber pacemakers lead to increased symptom burden, healthcare utilization, and atrial fibrillation (AF).BackgroundDual‐chamber pacemakers often change from dual‐ to single‐chamber pacing mode and/or lose RR functionality at ERI to preserve battery. Single‐chamber pacing increases the incidence of heart failure, AF, and pacemaker syndrome suggesting these changes may be deleterious.MethodsA retrospective analysis of 700 patients was completed. Three comparisons were analyzed: Comparison 1: mode change and RR loss versus no change; Comparison 2: RR loss only versus no change; Comparison 3: mode change only versus no change (in patients with no RR programmed at baseline).ResultsIn Comparison 1, 121 (46%) patients with setting changes experienced symptoms (most often dyspnea and fatigue/exercise intolerance) versus 3 (4%) without setting changes (p < .0001). Similar results were noted in Comparisons 2 and 3 (p = .0016 and p = .0001, respectively). In Comparison 1, patients with setting change sought provider contact more than patients without setting changes (p = .0001). A significant difference was not noted in Comparison 2 or 3. Overall 14 (2%) patients were hospitalized, all of whom had setting changes.ConclusionsSetting changes at ERI including a change from dual‐ to single‐chamber pacing and/or loss of RR results in a significantly increased symptom burden and increased healthcare utilization.