Comparison of the cardiopulmonary response to exercise in recipients of dual sensor DDDR pacemakers versus a healthy control group

PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

Volumn 26, Issue 1 II, 2003, Pages 239-243

  Page, Eric ^a,c   Defaye, Pascal ^a   Bonnet, Jean Luc ^b   Durand, Catherine ^a   Amblard, Amel ^b  

^a GRENOBLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^b ELA Medical   (France)

^c UCPX   (France)

Author keywords

Chronotropic assessment exercise protocol; Chronotropic insufficiency; Dual sensor pacing; Harbor test; Heart rate adaptation

Indexed keywords

LACTIC ACID;

ADAPTATION; ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTIFICIAL HEART PACEMAKER; CARDIOPULMONARY HEMODYNAMICS; CHRONOTROPISM; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DYSPNEA; EXERCISE; FATIGUE; FEMALE; FUNCTION TEST; GAS EXCHANGE; HEART MUSCLE METABOLISM; HEART PACING; HEART RATE; HUMAN; LACTATE BLOOD LEVEL; LUNG MINUTE VOLUME; MALE; MUSCLE STRENGTH; OXYGEN CONSUMPTION; PULSE GENERATOR; SENSOR;

EID: 0347926097     PISSN: 01478389     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2003.00024.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. Williams MA. Exercise testing and training in the elderly cardiac patient. Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics Publishers, 1994, pp. 11-23.
2. Guire DK, Levine BD, Williamson JW, et al. A 30-year follow-up of the Dallas Bedrest and Training Study. Effect of age on cardiovascular adaptation to exercise training. Circulation 2001; 4:1358-1366.
3. Page E, Bonnet JL, Durand C. Comparison of metabolic expenditure during CAEP versus a test adapted to aerobic capacity (Harbor test) in elderly healthy individuals. PACE 2000; 23:1772-1777.
4. Wilkoff BL, Corey J, Blackburn G. A mathematical model of the cardiac chronotropic response to exercise. J Electrophysiol 1989; 3:176-180.
5. Bonnet JL, Géroux L, Cazeau S. French Talent DR Pacemaker Investigators. Evaluation of a dual sensor rate responsive pacing system based on a new concept. PACE 1998; 21:2198-2203.
6. Camm AJ, Fei L. Chronotropic incompetence - Part II: Clinical implications. Clin Cardiol 1996; 19:503-508.
7. Wasserman K, Hansen JE, Sue DY, et al. Protocols for exercise testing. In K. Wasserman et al. (ed): Principles of Exercise Testing and Interpretation. Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger, 1994, pp. 58-71.
8. Dickstein K, Barvik S, Aarsland T, et al. A comparison of methodologies in detection of the anaerobic threshold. Circulation 1990; 81(Suppl. 1):II38-II48.
9. Ellestad MH. Chronotropic incompetence. The implications of heart rate response to exercise (compensatory parasympathetic hyperactivity?) Circulation 1996; 93:1485-1487.
10. Kay GN. Quantitation of chronotropic response: Comparison of methods for rate-modulating permanent pacemakers. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 20:1533-1541.
11. Freedman RA, Hopper DL, Mah J, et al. Assessment of pacemaker chronotropic response: Implementation of the Wilkoff mathematical model. PACE 2001; 24:1748-1754.
12. Alt E, Combs W, Fotuhi P, et al. Initial clinical experience with a new dual sensor SSIR pacemaker controlled by body activity and minute ventilation. PACE 1995; 18:1487-1495.
13. Ovsyshcher I, Guldal M, Karaoguz R, et al. Evaluation of a new rate adaptive ventricular pacemaker controlled by double sensors. PACE 1995; 18:386-390.
14. Lascault G, Pansard Y, Scholl JM, et al. Dual chamber rate responsive pacing and chrenotropic insufficiency. Comparison of double and respiratory sensors. Arch Mal Cœur 2001; 94:190-195.