ABSTRACT
A study was undertaken to determine the most effective method of pacemaker follow-up in terms of the total number of complications detected and yield per follow-up in single and dual chamber pacing systems. The analysis involved 9,786 patient records from 635 patients. The records were reviewed with respect to method of follow-up, number of chambers paced, and complications detected. Complications included: oversensing, undersensing, noncapture, pocket and diaphragmatic stimulation, pacemaker mediated tachycardia, crosstalk, pulse generator malfunction, lead malfunction, infection/erosion, premature end of service, exit block, and other miscellaneous problems. Eight thousand two hundred eighty-eight of the 9,786 follow-ups were performed in the office while 1,498 were transtelephonic. Single chamber pacing systems were implanted in 329 patients and 306 were dual chamber systems. A total of 599 complications were detected. Analysis yielded a per patient complication rate of 5.1% (single chamber) and 8.4% (dual chamber) for in-office follow-up. This compared to a transtelephonic follow-up per patient complication rate of only 0.3% (single chamber) and 1.0% (dual chamber). In-office pacemaker follow-up is significantly more effective (P < 0.001) than transtelephonic follow-up in detecting both single and dual chamber pacemaker system complications.
