AIMS: To describe current evidence of the frequency, contents, and involved professionals of the routine follow-up visits in patients who have received a pacemaker (PM). METHODS AND RESULTS: The multicentre FOLLOWPACE study prospectively collected data during implantation and follow-up of 1526 patients who received a PM for the first time. A total of 4914 follow-up visits were studied. Mean follow-up was 394 days with a mean of 3.2 visits per patient. At all follow-up visits, the battery condition was tested in >93%, the stimulation threshold in >91%, and sensing in >87%. The pacemaker parameters as stimulation and sensing thresholds, lead impedances, and percentages of pacing remained stable over time, but these values did depend on the lead location, lead fixation, and pulse duration. The majority of PM (re-)programming was performed during implantation and/or shortly before hospital discharge (50%). PM re-programming during follow-up was most frequently performed by the PM technician alone (95%). CONCLUSION: Crucial PM parameters are regularly checked. Re-programming of PM parameters declined during the first year after PM implantation. The majority of PM checks were carried out by the PM technician, indicating the major influence of the allied professional on the quality and safety of the pacing therapy.
AIMS: To describe current evidence of the frequency, contents, and involved professionals of the routine follow-up visits in patients who have received a pacemaker (PM). METHODS AND RESULTS: The multicentre FOLLOWPACE study prospectively collected data during implantation and follow-up of 1526 patients who received a PM for the first time. A total of 4914 follow-up visits were studied. Mean follow-up was 394 days with a mean of 3.2 visits per patient. At all follow-up visits, the battery condition was tested in >93%, the stimulation threshold in >91%, and sensing in >87%. The pacemaker parameters as stimulation and sensing thresholds, lead impedances, and percentages of pacing remained stable over time, but these values did depend on the lead location, lead fixation, and pulse duration. The majority of PM (re-)programming was performed during implantation and/or shortly before hospital discharge (50%). PM re-programming during follow-up was most frequently performed by the PM technician alone (95%). CONCLUSION: Crucial PM parameters are regularly checked. Re-programming of PM parameters declined during the first year after PM implantation. The majority of PM checks were carried out by the PM technician, indicating the major influence of the allied professional on the quality and safety of the pacing therapy.
Authors: C C de Cock; J Elders; N M van Hemel; K van den Broek; L van Erven; B de Mol; J Talmon; D A M J Theuns; W de Voogt Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Kelly Arps; Jonathan P Piccini; Rebecca Yapejian; Rhonda Leguire; Brenda Smith; Sana M Al-Khatib; Tristram D Bahnson; James P Daubert; Donald D Hegland; Kevin P Jackson; Larry R Jackson; Robert K Lewis; Sean D Pokorney; Albert Y Sun; Kevin L Thomas; Camille Frazier-Mills Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2021-08-23