Quality Of Life For Patients With Pacemaker By Modified Pacing System

Objective To observe the effects and explore methodology of pacing system modified on quality of life of patients by dynamical adjusting pacemaker parameters and/or pacing hardware during continuous follow-up. Methods 120 patients who were implantated pacemakers were selected, including biventricular pacing 16, biatrial pacing 11, double chamber pacemakers 57, antiatrifibrillation pacemakers 18, single chamber pacemakers 18. Follow-up time was from 3 months to 30 months, mean 21±5.9 months. Many markers, such as ECG, Holier- monitoring electrocardigram, ultrasonic cardiogram, cardiac function, 6 minutes walk, sores of questionnaires of quality of life, were performed for evaluating the effect of treatments, change of quality of life and class of cardiac function pro- and post- modified pacing system during follow-up. It was important for different patients and varied time, to select different markers. Results adjust AVD 61 cases (including biventricular pacing 16 cases); adjust pacing frequency 42 cases; adjust pacing sensation 20 cases (including PMT 2 cases); adjust pacing pattern 6 cases (including PMT 3 cases); check pacing malfunction 5 cases. Left ventricular ejection fraction, 6 minutes walk and questionnaires of quality of life were remarkably improved after modified pacing system both 6 patients by changing single chamber pacemaker into double chamber pacemaker and 16 bioventricular pacing by choosing the best AV Delay, meanwhile, the NYHA class of heart failure and frequency of hospitalization were better than that of pre-modified pacing system. Tachycardia, induced by pacemaker in 3 patients including 2 patients with biatrial pacemaker and 1 patient with double chamber pacemaker, was stopped by modified pacing system. Single chamber pacemakers were implanted in 6 patients with permanency atrial fibrillation after atrial ventricular node of the six patients were blocked. The scores of SF-36 and QLIPP (quality of life instrument for patients with pacemaker) were higher than before modified pacing system. Conclusion To ensure pacing therapeutic efficacy and improve significantly quality of life for patients with pacemakers by modified pacing system; To improve efficiency of follow-up according to different patients and varied time; To give consideration to principle of saving energy should be persisted; Questionnaires of quality of life for patients with pacemaker could evaluated quality of life for patients with pacemaker.