Opinion poll

Hi there!

Just curious: What would you prefer: longer battery life or better technology?

I have had this discussion with my EP, and I told him that since I'm pretty young (28) and need features like the rate response a lot, I would trade a newer technology to a longer battery life. There still is so much technologic progress, and if I'd have a battery that lasts for example 20 years, I will not benefit from this progress for quite a long time. He said this was an interesting point of view, and that he understands what I mean. I'm definitely not happy about needing surgery again and again, but I can live with surgery every 8-10 years if the new pacer better mimics my sinus node better than the previous, and thereby increases my quality of life.

Looking forward to hearing your opinions :-)
Best
Inga

9 Comments

Wrong Question

by ElectricFrank - 2009-09-27 02:09:04

I'm putting on my engineers hat for this one. Newer technology will extend battery life and give more features. Even in the current models the battery drain is affected by whether a feature is turned on or off. For instance the motion sensor circuitry of Rate Response is only turned on if RR is on. It's kind of like the number of light bulbs in your home. More lights don't use more electricity unless you turn them on.

The things that affect battery life the most is the battery technology itself and its size. So one question is "Which would you rather have, a smaller pacemaker or longer battery life?"

There is much that could be done to increase battery life even with the pacer already implanted in your body. Most cardiologist's and even EP's don't understand the pacing process well enough. (Who knows whether the pacer reps are told to keep the battery higher to sell more pacers) One of the most power hungry items in the pacer is the actual pacing energy sent to the heart. Setting the pacing voltage higher than required shortens battery life. Turning on Rate Response unnecessarily not only uses power for the sensors but causes pacing of the atrium. Adding one chamber can double the pacing energy used.

Here is an example:
On my checkup of 10/1/07 my ventricular pacing voltage was set to 2.97 volts. My estimated battery life was 5 years.

I had a problem with loss of capture and went back for an apt on 11/14/07. The voltage was reset to 5.25 volts. The estimated life dropped to 2 years.

They would have left it that way unless I had insisted on a retest on 4/1/08 at which point I was over the problem and it was reset to 3.83 volts. The battery life now showed 3.5 years.

If you followed all that simply re-adjusting the pacing voltage changed the life from 5 to 2 to 3.5 years.

Sooooo,

frank

Better Power Sources

by SMITTY - 2009-09-27 02:09:41

Hi Inga,

There is no reason we can't have better PM/Defib technology and better battery life at the same time. As I look back at the advances in electronic technology over the last 25 years, better electronics are becoming available each day to make better products from can openers to pacemaker/defibrillators and beyond. The new electronic hardware is usually not considered successful if it has an increase in power demand to operate. Look at what has happened to laptop computers in the last few years. A laptop today can do more while using less power than just a few years ago.

I'm waiting for the day that they can utilize our normal body heat to generate enough power to run our pacemaker. Using body heat to generate to run defibrillators may take a while longer. But we see the use of heat to generate electrical power every day. Take the thermostat in your house for example, heat. or lack thereof, generates the electrical power needed to makes that thermostat work. Literally, all it takes is two pieces of dissimilar metals, like iron and copper for example, in contact and they will generate an electrical current albeit a very small current. Add a few degrees of heat and the power output goes up. Some of the more exotic metals do a even better job of this, but I can't name them.

But the ringer in all this is that we are talking about the pacemaker/Defib makers developing this technology and if they go to the PM/Defib unit with an extremely long life of the power source there goes a big portion of there PM/Defib replacement sales. You know, kind of like cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Then there is the even more exotic power source from nuclear power. They can stick a few milligrams of uranium in a capsule, seal it up in a lead container and stick it in the PM and it can generate power for a persons life time. In addition your body may glow enough that at night that you would not need a flashlight.

As you can see, I think the possibilities for a better power source are endless. Inga I saw where you said you are 28 years old. I think back to when I was 28, which was only 52 years ago and think of the electronic marvels we had. There was TV and transistor radios and a few others I can't remember right now but the progress in this field has been mind boggling. So you kids be patient you can bet better things are coming.

Now for a disclaimer. I am talking about things I know little or nothing about but as you can guess I don't have a lot to do today and one of the reasons is I have shingles. I was diagnosed with this Friday and they are hurting like hell right now. My best relief is to find something to make me forget the pain for a few minutes and sitting at this keyboard helps. I have medication that helps a lot, but unless I am ready to take a several hours long nap I don't take it. I will say one thing for that medicine (Neurontin) it will give me a night of interrupted sleep. Too bad they didn't try Neurontin for Michael Jackson

Now what else can I bore all of you with?

Smitty

Different Option

by ShadowWeaver - 2009-09-27 03:09:29

I would rather if I have to have a pacemaker that it be something that is deeply implanted and does not need replacing. Why can't they design a pacemaker that draws its power from the natural electrical field that the body generates? The electrical power in the body is higher then what most pacemakers need to stimulate the heart, so why not run a pacemaker off of that energy to where battery would not even be a question. Then have the software be upgradeable through the check-up device so that when newer better programs are designed to imitate the sinus node, they can be uploaded into the pacer and have the automated upgraded function without surgery of any kind. Such a device would eliminate the need for surgery after the initial implant.

Thanks

by golden_snitch - 2009-09-27 05:09:39

Hi guys!

Thanks for all the interesting perspectives on this!

I really hope that we will get all of what has been mentioned:longer battery life, smaller size and technology that can be updated/upgraded like a PC. That would be cool.

As for now, I won't complain: I've got the smallest pacemaker on the market, the battery will most likely survive around nine years, and the technology already is much, much better than in my last device which was a Medtronic Kappa 401SR.

I'm a quite happy pacer at the moment :-)

other way around

by golden_snitch - 2009-09-27 10:09:51

Ups, sorry I think it's this way around: I would trade a longer battery life to a newer technology. I'm confused but you know what I mean, I guess.

Selfish???

by Pookie - 2009-09-27 12:09:05

Call me selfish, but I want both!!!!!!!! If they can send man to the moon, then why can't they "perfect" the pacemakers and defibs a lot sooner than they are???

Gee, does politics and money play a part in this?

Perhaps Bill Gates or someone like that should be developing our devices...think of the extras we could have....lol. :)

Obviously there isn't a great demand for pacers and defibs to be upgraded. But then again, I thank my lucky stars I have the pacer I do as I remember my grandfather having one back in the early 1970's and it was huge!!!!!!!!!!!

Pookie



LONGLIFE??

by pete - 2009-09-28 03:09:00

We have discussed the biothermal battery before and come to the conclusion it will not see the light of day as an everlasting battery would cut all the replacement profits.
I think my pacemaker is too small and a increase in volume of 50% would give me a much more acceptable battery life of 15 years as opposed to 7 1/2. That is not going to happen, all down to the profit motive. One of my neighbours had a pacemaker that would have lasted 18 years but had it replaced after 15 years for one that would only last 8. There is no excuse for not giving us what we deserve, a longer battery life and the technology as well. However the manufacturers are far more interested in the bottom line than giving us what we want. Cheers Peter
P.S. It may take China to shake up this market.

I would...

by turboz24 - 2009-09-29 09:09:08

I would trade off battery life for size when it comes to ICD's. I'd rather have a device that lasted just 3-5 years if it was half the size of a device that lasted 5-8 years.

opinion poll

by cordial - 2009-10-07 03:10:46

One responder hit the nail on the head when he/she said pacing is to improve quality of life. Back in the early 70's pacing was only for complete heart block when patients were in severe heart trouble with rates of 35-40 bpm. In the 80's indications for pacing broadened to include sick sinus syndrome (after millions spent by companies to prove benefits in worldwide clinical trials that went on for years). SSS pacing didn't save lives it just greatly improved lives. Then came bundle branch block, A-V disassociation,
atrial fibrillation, etc. Lead and pacemaker technology had to change in order to facilitate these new indications. Each new sensor/feature draws current, i.e., does more lasts less long!! Because we all want the smallest, longest lasting, most featured pacemaker we can get. Don't we?

IMOH I think gene and nano technology will completely change medicine. Particulary cardiac /implantable therapies.

You know you're wired when...

You participate in the Pacer Olympics.

Member Quotes

I can bike a 40-50 tour with no trouble.