부산대학교 도서관

The effects of myopotential interference on unipolar rate responsive pacemakers were assessed in 22 patients. Six types of pacemakers from four manufacturers) were studied: five TX2 (QT sensing), seven Biorate (five RDP3 and two MB-1, respiratory rate sensing), seven Activitrax (activity sensing), two Medtronic 2503 (dP/dt sensing), and one Sensolog P703 (activity sensing). Provocative tests using arm exercises were performed in both VV1 and rate responsive modes. At nominal sensitivity settings (1.8-2.5 mV), 55% of these patients were myopotential positive for at least I provocative test. Pressing the palms together was found to be the most sensitive provocative test. Rate response was achieved with treadmill exercise (all patients), hyperventilation (RDP3 and MB-I) and tapping (Activitrax) or wobbling the pacemaker in its pocket (Sensolog). During continued rate acceleration, myopotential interference was induced by arm exercises. The duration of inhibition was shorter when the provocative tests were performed during rate response compared to that occurred at rest. Short periods of myopotential interference resulted in temporary inhibition of pacing but rate response continued immediately on removal of the interference, in one patient with a RDP3 pacemaker, a prolonged episode of myopotential interference during treadmill exercise resulted in reversion of the pacemaker to the interference mode. Appropriate adjustment of the sensitivity setting effectively controlled the symptoms in most patients. However one patient with a QT sensing pacemaker and symptomatic myopotential interference required programming to the VVT pacing mode. Two out of five patients with RDP3 required pacemaker replacement because of uncontrolled myopotential interference. In conclusion, myopotential interference is a significant problem in unipolar rate responsive pacemakers. The use of provocative tests may assist in the diagnosis of this problem.