Pacemaker Follow‐Up: Its Role in the Detection and Correction of Pacemaker System Malfunction

The goal of pacemaker follow‐up is not only to detect battery depletion but also to detect all malfunctions of the pacing system and, when possible, to correct such problems using programming. During one year, we discovered 61 such infunctions in a clinic of 1065 patients (5.7%). These were more frequent in the first year (7.7%) than in the third to fifth years of follow‐up (range 3.1–4.8%). The incidence rose again in the sixth and subsequent years (7–7.7%). Despite a significant occurrence of malfunctions (5.2%)among multiprogrammable pacemakers, the necessity for operative intervention for their correction was low (1.2%). Sensing problems were the most common (57%) and the most likely to be corrected hy reprogromming (85%); problems involving loss of capture were less likely to be corrected by programming (38.5%). Battery depletion accounted for only 18% of malfunctions, occurring earliest in the forty‐third month of follow‐up. Pulse generator longevity of those devices reaching end of battery life during the study period was 68.6 ± 16.7 months (mean + SD). We conclude that specialized pacemaker follow‐up continues to be necessary despite improved pulse generator reliability and longevity. Indeed, with reprogramming, it presently plays an even more important role than in the past. Follow‐up should he oriented not only to the detection of battery depletion but also toward o comprehensive surveillance of pacemaker system function.