What 65 means
- by Misty
- 2007-08-20 09:08:34
- General Posting
- 1712 views
- 4 comments
My son found this website for me and encouraged me to join. I have to tell you though that it will be my son or husband who checkes the site and writes my questions and replies. In fact my son will guide me through this process since the internet and computers are something i know very little about. They can do the internet and I'll do the cooking. I always say: "stay with what you know".
Anyway here's some of the details of my pacemaker: Got it in November of 1991, after the operation I was lethargic and disappointed about life in general. My son pep talked me every chance he could. He got me to start walking and then to join a gym. I loved the gym and social life...it was all good for me. In many ways my life took a major change for the better.
Since 1991 I have had two battery changes: the first in 98 and the second one a couple months ago. I continued going to the gym until August 2nd when I had major survery and was told by my doctor not to exercise except to walk daily.
I miss the gym and hate sitting around watching TV and doing little except giving orders to my husband and son on how to clean and cook.
But here's the question that led to my son finding this site. My doctor told me that the pace maker was set for 65. But I am wondering 65 what? The bottom number in my BP has been very low ( today it was 55 ) my pulse at rest is always around the low 70's so I'm wondering what "being set for 65" means. We just took it now and it was 129/49 and 72 pulse.
Maybe it's because I've had two operations in the last 6 weeks and was told that I can't exercise that I'm a feeling a little discouraged about everything but isn't my Diastolic # too low?
Any thoughts on what "being set at 65" is suppose to mean?
Thanks,
Misty
4 Comments
Beats per minute.
by bowlrbob - 2007-08-20 12:08:18
Set at 65 means that the pacer is set at 65 bpm. Should your heart want to go lower the pacer won't let it. Bowlrbob PS everyone is different mine was first set at 50BPM then later changed to 70 BPM to increase my energy level. That worked.
Pacer life
by bowlrbob - 2007-08-21 01:08:33
No Problem Misty, After you get to be an old hand at this Pacer stuff. It is fun to help others as others helped us when we needed it. My last interrogation showed that mine was working 38% of the time and it still showed an estimated life of 8 years. That is based on the use it is getting at the time. When they had me set at 50BPM the estimated life was 12 years. So that drops depending on usage. The usage then was 8%. But quality of life means more than the battery life. So if I have to get another one sooner because I am using it more, so be it. I hear getting one replaced is a piece of cake. Bowlrbob
I'm getting educated!
by MJH - 2007-08-23 11:08:43
Thanks, guys and gals for all the info. I should know all this since my daughter has had a pacer for 9 years now, but I don't. I just got out the report from her June 29 annual visit to the cardiologist and reviewed her numbers: programmed in the DDD (?) mode low rate 50, upper tracking rate 180 bpm.; one lead in both right atrium and right ventricle, battery voltage showed 2.79 with predicted longevity of 8 years. When inhibited the underlying rhythm was 3rd degree block at 44 bpm. BP 115/47, heart rate 71. I don't know what % of time it's working, but was told it's "rate responsive." I need to ask that question--and several others! Anyone have comments about an abnormal VO2Max reading of 25 (normal 34) she got June 29? What's the long-term prognosis? Mary Jane
You know you're wired when...
You run like the bionic man.
Member Quotes
We are very lucky to have these devices.
Beats per minute
by Misty - 2007-08-20 05:08:47
Thanks Bob and Cathryn...nice to find a community of PM people who share information that is not always available from doctors that are far too busy to take a call or call you back.
I was told that my pacemaker must not be working very hard since the battery lasts 7 years. How does that number compare to others here?
Thanks again,
Misty