Download PDF
Der Klinikarzt 2016; 45(09): 394-399
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-115402
Schwerpunkt
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Programmierbarkeit von Schrittmachern

Was ist notwendig, was ist die Zukunft?Programmability of pacemakers – What is necessary, what will the future look like?
Gerd Fröhlig
1   Homburg
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
21 September 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Der Beitrag versucht, unverzichtbare Werkzeuge zu Notfallintervention und Basisfunktionen eines Schrittmachers von solchen Programmieroptionen zu trennen, welche Spezialfälle lösen oder helfen, eine gestörte Hämodynamik zu bessern. Meist entbehrliche Funktionen werden benannt, Unnötiges gar nicht erst erwähnt. Jeder Abschnitt enthält die Rationale für eine Wahlmöglichkeit und die nötigsten – keineswegs erschöpfenden – Literaturbelege dazu. Für den Arzt, der sich nicht täglich mit Schrittmachern beschäftigt, werden heute schon nutzbare und nützliche Automatismen vorgestellt und grobe Linien zukünftiger Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten hin zu „closed-loop“-Systemen angerissen.

This is an attempt to differentiate between mandatory tools for emergency management and for safeguarding of basic pacemaker functions from those programming options which may help to solve individual problems or to improve patient’s hemodynamics. Mostly dispensable functions are listed, unnessessary features are just not mentioned. Every section tries to give a rationale for the specific programming option and some supporting (although fragmentary) evidence from the literature. The „non-pacemaker-specialist“ might benefit from some automaticity which is already available, and raw notions of potential developments are given towards closed-loop self regulating systems.

Key words

Emergency management - pacemaker - programming options - automaticity
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Sowton E. Haemodynamic Studies in Patients with Artificial Pacemakers. Br Heart J 1964; 26: 737-746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Padeletti L, Arnar DO, Boncinelli L et al. EHRA Expert Consensus Statement on the management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in patients nearing end of life or requesting withdrawal of therapy. Europace 2010; 12: 1480-1489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=2010–6&Seite=1&nr=52999&pos=49&anz=313
    PubMed
  • 4 Sommer T, Luechinger R, Barkhausen J et al. German Roentgen Society Statement on MR Imaging of Patients with Cardiac Pacemakers. Rofo 2015; 187: 777-787
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lapicque L. Définition expérimentale de l’excitabilité. Soc Bil 1909; 67: 280
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Irnich W. Störbeeinflussung von implantierbaren Schrittmachern und Defibrillatoren. Herzschr Elektrophys 2004; 15: 9-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Willems R, Holemans P, Ector H et al. Paradoxical undersensing at a high sensitivity in dual chamber pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2001; 24: 308-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lukl J, Doupal V, Sovova E et al. Incidence and significance of chronotropic incompetence in patients with indications for primary pacemaker implantation or pacemaker replacement. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1999; 22: 1284-1291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lamas GA, Knight JD, Sweeney MO et al. Impact of rate-modulated pacing on quality of life and exercise capacity--evidence from the Advanced Elements of Pacing Randomized Controlled Trial (ADEPT). Heart Rhythm 2007; 4: 1125-1132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kay GN, Ashar MS, Bubien RS, Dailey SM. Relationship between heart rate and oxygen kinetics during constant workload exercise. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1995; 18: 1853-1860
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kindermann M, Fröhlig GChronotropie In: G. Fröhlig, J. Carlsson, J. Jung. et al. (Hrsg.) Herzschrittmacher- und Defibrillatortherapie. Thieme; 2013: 60-60
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G et al. 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J 2013; 34: 2281-2329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Nielsen JC, Thomsen PE, Hojberg S et al. A comparison of single-lead atrial pacing with dual-chamber pacing in sick sinus syndrome. Eur Heart J 2011; 32: 686-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Nielsen JC, Thomsen PE, Hojberg S et al. Atrial fibrillation in patients with sick sinus syndrome: the association with PQ-interval and percentage of ventricular pacing. Europace 2012; 14: 682-689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Crisel RK, Farzaneh-Far R, Na B, Whooley MA. First-degree atrioventricular block is associated with heart failure and death in persons with stable coronary artery disease: data from the Heart and Soul Study. Eur Heart J 2011; 32: 1875-1880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Iliev II, Yamachika S, Muta K et al. Preserving normal ventricular activation versus atrioventricular delay optimization during pacing: the role of intrinsic atrioventricular conduction and pacing rate. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2000; 23: 74-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sohaib SM, Whinnett ZI, Ellenbogen KA et al. Cardiac resynchronisation therapy optimisation strategies: systematic classification, detailed analysis, minimum standards and a roadmap for development and testing. Int J Cardiol 2013; 170: 118-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Healey JS, Connolly SJ, Gold MR et al. Subclinical atrial fibrillation and the risk of stroke. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 120-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rosenthal LS, Mester S, Rakovec P et al. Factors influencing pacemaker generator longevity: results from the complete automatic pacing threshold utilization recorded in the CAPTURE Trial. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2010; 33: 1020-1030
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ghosh S, Stadler RW, Mittal S. Automated detection of effective left-ventricular pacing: going beyond percentage pacing counters. Europace 2015; 17: 1555-1562
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Powell BD, Asirvatham SJ, Perschbacher DL et al. Noise, artifact, and oversensing related inappropriate ICD shock evaluation: ALTITUDE noise study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2012; 35: 863-869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lewalter T, Tuininga Y, Frohlig G et al. Morphology-enhanced atrial event classification improves sensing in pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2007; 30: 1455-1463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Begemann MJ, Thijssen WA, Haaksma J. The influence of test window width on atrial rhythm classification in dual chamber pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1992; 15: 2158-2163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dijkman B, Wellens HJ. Dual chamber arrhythmia detection in the implantable cardioverter defibrillator. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2000; 11: 1105-1115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kaufman ES, Israel CW, Nair GM et al. Positive predictive value of device-detected atrial high-rate episodes at different rates and durations: an analysis from ASSERT. Heart Rhythm 2012; 9: 1241-1246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Callaghan F, Vollmann W, Livingston A et al. The ventricular depolarization gradient: effects of exercise, pacing rate, epinephrine, and intrinsic heart rate control on the right ventricular evoked response. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1989; 12: 1115-1130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Brugada J, Brachmann J, Delnoy PP et al. Automatic optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy using SonR - rationale and design of the clinical trial of the SonRtip lead and automatic AV-VV optimization algorithm in the paradym RF SonR CRT-D (RESPOND CRT) trial. Am Heart J 2014; 167: 429-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar