A comparative analysis of signal processing methods for motion-based rate responsive pacing

Abstract

Pacemakers that augment heart rate (HR) by sensing body motion have been the most frequently prescribed rate responsive pacemakers. Many comparisons between motion-based rate responsive pacemaker models have been published. However, conclusions regarding specific signal processing methods used for rate response (e.g., filters and algorithms) can be affected by device-specific features. To objectively compare commonly used motion sensing filters and algorithms, acceleration and ECG signals were recorded from 16 normal subjects performing exercise and daily living activities. Acceleration signals were filtered (1–4 or 15-Hz band-pass), then processed using threshold crossing (TC) or integration (IN) algorithms creating four filter/algorithm combinations. Data were converted to an acceleration indicated rate and compared to intrinsic HR using root mean square difference (RMSd) and signed RMSd. Overall, the filters and algorithms performed similarly for most activities. The only differences between filters were for walking at an increasing grade (1–4 Hz superior to 15-Hz) and for rocking in a chair (15-Hz superior to 1–4 Hz). The only differences between algorithms were for bicycling (TC superior to IN), walking at an increasing grade (IN superior to TC), and holding a drill (IN superior to TC). Performance of the four filter/algorithm combinations was also similar over most activities. The 1–4/IN (filter [Hz]/algorithm) combination performed best for walking at a grade, while the 15/TC combination was best for bicycling. However, the 15/TC combination tended to be most sensitive to higher frequency artifact, such as automobile driving, downstairs walking, and hand drilling. Chair rocking artifact was highest for 1–4/IN. The RMSd for bicycling and upstairs walking were large for all combinations, reflecting the nonphysiological nature of the sensor. The 1–4/TC combination demonstrated the least intersubject variability, was the only filter/algorithm combination insensitive to changes in footwear, and gave similar RMSd over a large range of amplitude thresholds for most activities. In conclusion, based on overall error performance, the preferred filter/algorithm combination depended upon the type of activity.