{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02828917826672654, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009878760664571173, 'mean_word_length': 5.420749279538905, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Dual Sensor VVIR Mode Pacing: Is It Worth It?

Dual sensor ventricular demand rate responsive (VVIR mode) pacing was compared with single sensor rate responsive pacing to assess whether this new development should be more widely incorporated in modern pacemaker devices. A within patient randomized, double‐blind crossover study involving ten patients, mean age 67.4 years (70% male), had Medtronic Legend Plus dual sensor VVIR pacemakers implanted for high grade A V block and chronic or persistent paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Performance values were compared to 20 healthy control subjects of a similar age and gender. Patients were both subjectively and objectively assessed after 2 weeks of out‐of‐hospital activity in VVIR mode (minute ventilation sensing), VVIR mode (activity sensing), VVIR mode (dual sensor), and VVI mode (no rate response). All patients were assessed for subjective preference for, and objective improvement in, any pacing modality as assessed by standardized daily activity protocols and graded exercise treadmill testing. Subjective perception of exercise capacity and functional status was significantly lower in VVI mode (P < 0.05) compared to any of the VVIR modes, which did not differ. After completion of the study 70% of patients chose VVIR as their preferred mode, with 30% expressing no preference. Forty percent preferred activity sensor WIR mode pacing, 30% preferred dual sensor VVIR mode pacing, and 70% found either dual sensor WIR mode, minute ventilation sensor WIR mode, or both modalities least acceptable. No patient found activity sensing WIR mode least acceptable. Graded treadmill testing revealed significantly lower exercise tolerance during WI mode pacing (P < 0.01) compared to the VVIR modalities, which did not differ. Overall, chronotropic response was best with dual sensor pacing during standardized daily activity protocols and during the standard car journey. The data from this study suggest that there is no marked clinical advantage obtained from the use of dual sensor devices over current activity sensing ventricular demand rate responsive pacemakers, but with the probable added disadvantages of increased size, complexity, cost, and decreased longevity.