Adequacy of Pacing Rate During Exercise in Rate Responsive Ventricular Pacing

Our objective was to determint; the adequate pacing rate during exercise in ventricular pacing by measuring exercise capacity, cardiac output, and sinus node activity. Eighteen patients with complete AV block and an implanted pacemaker underwent cardiopulmonary exercise tests under three randomized pacing rates: fixed rate pacing (VVJ) at 60 beats/min and ventricular rate-responsive pacing (VVIR) programmed to attain a heart rate of about 110 beats/min ar 130 beats/min (VVIR 110 and VVIR 130, respectively) at the end of exercise. Compared with VVI and VVIR 130, VVIR 110 was associated with an increased peak oxygen uptake(VVIR 110:20.3 ± 4.5 vs VVI: 16.9 ± 3.1; P < 0.01; and VVIR 130: 19.0 ± 4.1 mL/min per kg, respectively; P < 0.05) and a higher oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold (15.3 ± 2.7, 12.7 ± 1.9; P < 0.01, and 14.6 ± 2.6 mL/min per kg; P < 0.05). The atrial rate during exercise expressed as a percentage of the expected maximal heart rate was lower in VVIR 110 than in VVI or VVIR 130 (VVIR 110: 75.9%± 14.6% vs VVI: 90.6%± 12.8%; P < 0.01; VVIR 110 vs VVIR 130: 89.1%± 23.1%; P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in cardiac output at peak exercise between VVIR 110 and VVIR 130. We conclude that a pacing rate for submaximal exercise of 110 beats/min may be preferable to that of 130 beats/min in respect to exercise capacity and sympathetic nerve activity.     

Superior Cardiac Hemodynamics of Atrioventricular Synchrony Over Rate Responsive Pacing at Submaximal Exercise: Observations in Activity Sensing DDDR Pacemakers

LAU, C.-P., ET AL.: Superior Cardiac Hemodynamics of Atrioventricular Synchrony Over Rate Responsive Pacing at Submaximal Exercise: Observations in Activity Sensing DDDR Pacemakers. The relative hemodynamic profile between dual chamber pacing (DDD) and activity sensing rate responsive pacing (VVIR) was compared in ten patients with dual chamber rate responsive pacemakers (Synergist 11). With a double blind, randomized exercise protocol, DDDR pacemakers were programmed into VVI, VVIR, and DDD (AV interval 150 msec) modes and in seven patients the test in the DDD mode was repeated with the AV interval programmed at 75 msec. A treadmill exercise test of 6-minutes duration (2 stages, Stage 1 at 2 mph, 0% gradient and Stage II at 2 mph, 15% gradient) was performed at each of the programmed settings, with a rest period of 30 minutes in between tests. Cardiac output was assessed using continuous-wave Doppler sampling ascending aortic flow and expressed as a percentage of the value achieved during VVI pacing. During exercise, pacing rate between DDD and VVIR pacing was similar but was higher with DDD at the first minute of recovery (91 ± 4vs 81 ± 3 beat/min, respectively). Cardiac output was significantly higher at rest, during low level exercise, and recovery with DDD pacing compared with VVIR pacing (resting: 21 ± 14 vs -2 ± 7%; Stage I: 36 ± 6 vs 16 ± 7%; Stage II: 25 ± 15 vs 10 ± 8%; recovery: 26 ± 12 vs 4 ± 9%; p < 0.05 in all cases). Systolic blood pressure was significantly higher during low level of exercise in the DDD mode. Shortening of the AV interval to 75 msec did not significantly affect cardiac output during exercise, but cardiac output after exercise was reduced (2 ± 6 vs 23 ± 6% at an AV interval of 150 msec, p < 0.02). By enhancing the stroke volume, DDD pacing improves cardiac hemodynamics at rest, during low level exercise, and early postexercise recovery.     

Effects of Chronotropic Responsive Cardiac Pacing on Ventilatory Response to Exercise in Patients with Complete AV Block

To identify the effect of chronotropic responsive cardiac pacing on the ventilatory response to exercise, ten selected patients with complete atrioventricular block underwent paired cardiopulmonary exercise tests in fixed rate ventricular (WI) and dual chamber (DDD) or rate responsive ventricular (VVIR) pacing modes. Compared to VVI pacing, DDD or VVIR pacing increased peak oxygen uptake (P < 0.005) and augmented anaerobic threshold (P < 0.001), In eight patients, dyspnea was the major symptom limiting exercise with VAT pacing and this was markedly attenuated with DDD or VVIR pacing. In all patients, ventilation (VE) and the ratio of ventilation to CO₂ production (VE/VCO₂) were consistently higher with VVI pacing during exercise. To compare the response of the two pacing modes at the same workloads in an aerobic condition, we measured ventilatory variables 1 minute prior to the anaerobic threshold obtained with VVI pacing. When DDD or VVIR pacing was compared with VVI pacing, VE and VE/VCO₂ significantly decreased from 20.5 ± 5.3 L/min to 18.3 ± 5.0 L/min (P < 0.005) and from 35.9 ± 5.8 to 31.9 ± 5.0 (P < 0.003), respectively. Respiratory frequency rose significantly more with VVI pacing (P < 0.001) despite an unchanged tidal vohame. Although peak VE did not differ between the two pacing modes, VE/VCO₂ at the peak exercise increased significantly more with VVI pacing (P < 0.005). Respiratory frequency also rose more with VVI pacing (P < 0.005) and tidal volume did not change. This study suggests that chronotropic responsive cardiac pacing attenuates the exertional dyspnea by improving the ventilatory response to exercise as well as increasing the cardiac output in patients with complete atrioventricular block.     

Atrial Arrhythmia Management with Sensor Controlled Atrial Refractory Period and Automatic Mode Switching in Patients with Minute Ventilation Sensing Dual Chamber Rate Adaptive Pacemakers

Although a long postventricular atrial refractory period fPVARP) may prevent the occurrence of pacemaker mediated tachycardias and inadvertent tracking of atrial arrhythmias in dual chamber (DDD) pacing, the maximum upper rate will necessarily be compromised. We tested the feasibility of using minute ventilation sensing in a dual chamber rate adaptive pacemaker (DDDR) to shorten the PVARP during exercise in 13 patients with bradycardias (resting PVARP = 463 ± 29 msec) to avoid premature upper rate behavior. Graded treadmill exercise tests in the DDD and DDDR modes at this PVARP resulted in maximum ventricular rates of 98 ± 8 and 142 ± 3 beats/min, respectively (P < 0.0001), due to chronotropic incompetence and upper rate limitation in the DDD mode, both circumvened with the use of sensor. In order to simulate atrial arrhythmias, chest wall stimulation was applied for 30 seconds at a rate of 250 beats/min at a mean unipolar atrial sensitivity of 0.82 mV. Irregular ventricular responses occurred in the DDD mode fthe rates at a PVARP of 280 and 463 ± 29 msec were, respectively 92 ± 5 and 66 ± 3 msec; P < 0.0001). In the DDDR mode at a PVARP of 463 ± 29 msec, regular ventricular pacing at 53 ± 2 beats/min occurred due to mode switching to VVIR mode in the presence of repetitive sensed atrial events within the PVARP. One patient developed spontaneous atrial fibrillation on follow-up, which was correctly identified by the pacemaker algorithm, resulting in mode switch from DDDR to regular VVIR pacing and preservation of rate response. In conclusion, sensor controlled PVARP allows a long PVARP to be used at rest without limiting the maximum rate during exercise. In addition, to offer protection against retrograde conduction, a long PVARP and mode switching also limit the rate during atrial arrhythmias and allow regular ventricular rate responses according to the physiological demands.     

Is Accurate Rate Response Programming Necessary?

Exercise capacity and general well-being are improved by appropriately programmed rate responsive pacemakers when compared to fixed rate units. Ten patients had activity sensing DDDR units implanted for combined AV block and sinus node incompetence. Ten patients had Sensolog activity sensing VVIR units implanted for complete heart block. The effects of over and under programming of rate response in both dual and single chamber activity sensor rate adaptive pacemakers has been assessed subjectively by visual analog scales and specific activity questionnaires and objectively by graded treadmill testing and the performance of standardized daily activities. Patients were randomly programmed to absent rate response (VVI in the Sensolog group), hyporesponsive (DDD in the dual chamber group), appropriate response (VVIR, DDDR according to Manufacturer's instructions) and over responsive (VVIR+, DDDR+) in a double-blind crossover design. Thirty percent of patients demanded early crossover from VVI, 30% from DDDR+ and 50% from VVIR+. Perception of Exercise Capability was similar to objective exercise treadmill times which were shorter in VVI than in VVIR or VVIR+ (P less than 0.05) or control subjects (P less than 0.001). There was no difference between any dual chamber mode or control subjects. General well-being was poorest in DDDR+ and VVIR+ modes despite objective improvement in exercise capacity. Symptoms were least in VVIR and DDDR and all but one patient chose appropriate programming as their overall preferred mode. Thus, even inaccurate rate response programming results in similar and improved exercise capacity compared to absent rate response but overprogramming is unacceptable to most patients, confirming that appropriate programming and sensor specificity is critical in rate responsive pacing.     

Aerobic Capacity in Rate Modulated Pacing

Whether heart rate or AV synchrony is the most important factor for an increase in aerobic capacity was evaluated in a comparative study between sinus bradycardia, VVIR, DDD, and DDDR stimulation. Sixteen patients (mean age 67 years) with chronotropic incompetence and impJanted DDDR pacemaker (Telectronics META 1250) were randomly studied by cardiopulmonary exercise testing. All patients were exercised to their anaerobic threshold (ATJ with the following heart rates: DDD 84 ± 3, WIR 110 ± 5, and DDDR 116 ± 6 beats/min. Mean oxygen uptake (VO₂, mL/kg per min) at AT was 7.4 ± 0.3 in DDD and WIR modes. A 12% increase was measured in DDDR mode (8.3 ± 0.4). Compared to VVIR work capacity in the DDDR mode was improved by 17% (41 vs 48 W/min). In patients with isolated sinus node disease (n = 9) the increase of VO₂ and work capacity at AT during DDDR mode was more pronounced (16% and 20%, respectively, compared to VVIR). In patients with intermittent second or third degree AV block (n = 7) the differences between the pacing modes were not significant. This might partly be due to a lesser degree of chronotropic incompetence in this subgroup. In conclusion only the conjunction of heart rate increase and preservation of AV synchrony provides a significant improvement in aerobic capacity during exercise.     

The Effects of Rate-Adaptive Atrial Pacing Versus Ventricular Backup Pacing on Exercise Capacity in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Background: Atrial rate-adaptive pacing may improve cardiopulmonary reserve in patients with left ventricular dysfunction.
Methods: A randomized, blinded, single-crossover design enrolled dual-chamber implantable defibrillator recipients without pacing indications and an ejection fraction ≤40% to undergo cardiopulmonary exercise treadmill stress testing in both atrial rate-adaptive pacing (AAIR) and ventricular demand pacing (VVI) pacing modes. The primary endpoint was change in peak oxygen consumption (VO₂). Secondary endpoints were changes in anaerobic threshold, perceived exertion, exercise duration, and peak blood pressure.
Results: Ten patients, nine males, eight with New York Heart Association class I, mean ejection fraction 24 ± 7%, were analyzed. Baseline VO₂ was 3.6 ± 0.5 mL/kg/min. Heart rate at peak exercise was significantly higher during AAIR versus VVI pacing (142 ± 18 vs 130 ± 23 bpm; P = 0.05). However, there was no difference in peak VO₂ (AAIR 23.7 ± 6.1 vs VVI 23.8 ± 6.3 mL/kg/min; P = 0.8), anaerobic threshold (AAIR 1.3 ± 0.3 vs VVI 1.2 ± 0.2 L/min; P = 0.11), rate of perceived exertion (AAIR 7.3 ± 1.5 vs VVI 7.8 ± 1.2; P = 0.46), exercise duration (AAIR 15 minutes, 46 seconds ± 2 minutes, 54 seconds vs VVI 16 minutes, 3 seconds ± 2 minutes, 48 seconds; P = 0.38), or peak systolic blood pressure (AAIR 155 ± 22 vs VVI 153 ± 21; P = 0.61) between the two pacing modes.
Conclusion: In this study, AAIR pacing did not improve peak VO_2, anaerobic threshold, rate of perceived exertion, or exercise duration compared to VVI backup pacing in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and no pacing indications.     

Hemodynamic Benefits of Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Pacing: Comparison with Right Ventricular Apex Pacing

To assess optimal hemodynamics in relation to stimulation site during right ventricular pacing, 17 consecutive patients who underwent cardiac catheterization were studied. In all patients, right ventricular apex and right ventricular outflow tract stimulation was performed at 85, 100, and 120 beats/min. Cardiac index at both pacing sites was compared using the left ventricular outflow tract continuous wave Doppler technique. Comparison of the two stimulation sites demonstrated that right ventricular outflow tract pacing resulted in a higher cardiac index at 85 beats/min (2.42 ± 1.2 vs 2.04 ±1.0 L/min per m², P < 0.002) at 100 beats/min (2.78 ± 1.4 vs 2.35 ± 1.1 L/min perm², P < 0.001) and 120 beats/min (3.00 ± 1.5 vs 2.61 ± 0.9 L/min perm², P < 0.001). From a total of 51 paired observations, 45 showed an increase in cardiac index during outflow tract pacing as compared to apex pacing. Right ventricular outflow tract pacing at 120 beats/min resulted in a lower cardiac index than right ventricular apex pacing in patients with significant coronary artery disease and/or impaired left ventricular function (ejection fraction ≤ 50%), whereas right ventricular outflow tract pacing produced higher cardiac indices in the absence of these abnormalities. Right ventricular outflow tract pacing resulted in higher cardiac indices as compared to apex pacing in all other subgroups at all other pacing sites tested. It is concluded that stimulation of the right ventricular outflow tract offers a significant hemodynamic benefit during single chamber pacing as compared to conventional apex pacing, particularly in the absence of significant coronary artery disease and/or left ventricular dysfunction.     

Variability of Left Atrial Bloodflow Predicts Intolerance of Ventricular Demand Pacing and May Cause Pacemaker Syndrome

Variability of left and right atrial and left ventncular bloodflow was studied using transthoracic and transesophageal Doppler echocardiography and related to pacemaker mode preference during everyday activity. Bloodflow variability was less at all sites during dual chamber pacing compared to single chamber pacing. However, in patients suffering from pacemaker syndrome and whom prefer DDDR pacing, significantly increased variability of left atrial antegrade (but not retrograde) bloodflow during VVIR pacing compared to DDDR pacing was noted, which was not evident in patients tolerating VVIR mode pacing. This effect was not detected at any other site and suggests that adverse left atrial hemodynamics may result in intolerence to VVI/R mode pacing and might cause pacemaker syndrome.     

Predictors and clinical impact of atrial fibrillation after pacemaker implantation in elderly patients treated with dual chamber versus ventricular pacing

The Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly (PASE) trial was a prospective, multicenter, single blind, randomized comparison of single chamber, rate adaptive, ventricular pacing (VVIR) with dual chamber, rate adaptive pacing (DDDR) in 407 patients aged > or =65 years(mean 76 +/- 7 years, 60% male)with standard bradycardia indications for dual chamber pacemaker implantation. The incidence, predictors, and clinical consequences of atrial fibrillation (AF) developing after pacemaker implantation in the PASE trial were studied prospectively. During a median follow-up of 18 months, AF developed in 73 (18%) patients. Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidences of AF in patients with sinus node dysfunction (n=176) at 18 months were 28% in the VVIR and 16% in the DDDR groups (P=0.08). After adjustment for other clinical variables using a Cox multivariate regression model, randomization to VVIR compared with DDDR pacing mode among patients with sinus node dysfunction was independently associated with a 2.6-fold increased relative risk (RR) of developing AF after pacemaker implantation (P=0.01). Other independent clinical risk factors for development of postimplant AF included a preimplant history of hypertension (P=0.02) or supraventricular tachyarrhythmias(P<0.04). Patients who developed AF had similar health related quality of life scores and cardiovascular functional status after 18 months of pacing as patients who remained free of AF. The RR of death, stroke, or heart failure hospitalization was not increased in patients who developed AF. Thus, in the elderly patients with sinus node dysfunction requiring permanent pacing, DDDR pacing mode protected against the development of AF. However, development of AF after pacemaker implantation in this population was not associated with a significant impact on quality-of-life, functional status, or other clinical endpoints during 18 months of follow-up.     

Quality of Life in Patients with Rate Responsive Pacemakers: A Randomized, Cross-Over Study

Eleven patients with rate responsive pacemakers (7 men, 4 women, mean age 41 years with a range of 23-60) were randomly assigned to a cross-over study in order to assess their overall exercise capacity and quality-of-life (QOL) scores. All of the pacemakers were implanted for complete AV block or sick sinus syndrome. The pacemakers were randomly programmed into VVI or rate responsive (VVIR) pacing modes for 3-week study periods in each mode. At the end of each period, an exercise test was performed and the QOL was evaluated by the "Hacettepe Quality-of-Life Questionnaire". All patients exercised longer in the VVIR mode (mean 10.54 ± 0,73 min) than in the VVI mode (mean 7.81 ± 0.62 min) (P < 0.05). QOL scores were also found to be significantly higher in the VVIR mode (mean 173.81 ± 16.22 points) compared to the VVI mode (mean 156.27 ± 21.22 points) (P < 0.01). In conclusion, our results suggest that VVIR pacing offers a better QOL in addition to an improved exercise capacity, compared to the single chamber nonrate modulated pacing (VVI).     

Efficacy of Ventricular Rate Stabilization by Right Ventricular Pacing During Atrial Fibrillation

To assess the effect of right ventricular pacing on rate regularity during exercise and daily life activities, 16 patients with sinoatrial disease and chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) were studied. Incremental ventricular pacing was commenced at 40 beats/min until > 95% of ventricular pacing were achieved during supine, sitting, and standing. Thirteen patients also underwent randomized paired submaximal exercise tests in either a fixed rate mode (VVI) or a ventricular rate stabilization (VRS) mode in which the pacingrate was set manually at 10 beats/min above the average AF rate duringthe last minute of each exercise stage. The pacing interval for rate regularization was shortest during standing (692 ± 26 ms) compared with either supine or sitting (757 ± 30 and 705 ± 26 ms, respectively, P < 0.05). During exercise, VRS pacing significantly increased the maximum rate (119 ± 5.2 vs 106 ± 4.2 ms, P < 0.05), percent of ventricular pacing (85%± 5% vs 23%± 7%, P < 0.05), rate regularity index (5.8%± 1.6% vs 13.4%± 1.9%, P < 0.05), and maximum level of oxygen consumption (12.4 ± 0.5 vs 11.3 ± 0.5 ml/kg, P < 0.05) compared with VVI pacing. There was no change in oxygen pulse or difference in symptom scores in this acute study between the two pacing modes. It is concluded that right ventricular pacing may significantly improve rate regularity and cardiopulmonary performance in patients with chronic AF. This may be incorporated in a pacing device for rate regularization of AF using an algorithm that is rate adaptive to postural and exercise stresses.     

Quality-of-Life in DDDR Pacing: Atrioventricular Synchrony or Rate Adaptation?

Al though differences in exercise performance have been observed between different rate adaptive modes, the relative impact of atrioventricular (AV) synchrony and rate adaptation on quality of life (QOL) have not been determined. Thirty-three patients with either sinoatrial disease (18) or complete atrioventricular (AV) block (15) received DDDR pacemakers (16 minute ventilation sensing, 17 activity sensing). There were 11 males and 22 females, with a mean age of 66 ± 1 (range 39–78) years. The study was a double-blind, triple cross-over study comparing DDDR, DDD, and VVIR modes. At the end of each 8-week study period in each mode, QOL was assessed by a questionnaire evaluating patients' functional class (Classes I-IV), physical malaise inventory (41 items), illness perception (43 items), and overall QOL rating based on a 48 items measure covering different aspects of the patients' daily life adjustment. Two patients required early crossover from VVIR mode during the study. Patients experienced significantly fewer physi cal malaise such as temperature intolerance, dyspnea, and palpitations in the DDDR mode, compared with either DDD or VVIR pacing. DDDR pacing reduced the perception of illness in 5 of 43 items compared to VVIR pacing, and improved stamina and appetite compared to DDD pacing. The overall QOL score was 102 ± 2, 105 ± 2, 113 ± 2 in the DDDR, DDD, and VVIR modes, respectively, with a higher score indicating a poorer QOL (DDDR/DDD vs VVIR, P < 0.02). There was no change in functional classes between the three pacing modes. In conclusion, VVIR pacing has a lower QOL compared with DDD pacing, which can be further enhanced with rate augmentation.     

A Randomized, Single-Blind Crossover Comparison of the Effects of Chronic DDD and Dual Sensor VVIR Pacing Mode on Quality-of- Life and Cardiopulmonary Performance in Complete Heart Block

The aim of this study was to compare DDD and dual sensor VVIR (activity and QT) pacing modes in complete AV block (CAVB). Eighteen patients (14 men and 4 women, aged 70 ± 6.5 years) implanted with a dual chamber, dual sensor pacemaker for CAVB with normal sinus node chronotropic function were studied. A quality-of-life and cardiovascular symptom questionnaire, and a treadmill exercise test were completed after a period of VVIR and a period of DDD pacing, each lasting 1 month. Overall quality-of-life and cardiovascular symptoms did not significantly differ, though three patients felt discomfort during VVIR mode. There was no significant statistical difference in Cardiopulmonary parameters. DDD and VVIR modes yielded the following respective data: maximum heart rate = 105.7 ± 21.8 beats/minute versus 107.6 ± 21.6 beats/minute (NS); maximum workload = 60 ± 33.4 W versus 59.3 ± 37.8 W (NS); treadmill duration = 10.1 ± 3.8 minute versus 10.1 ± 3.6 minute (NS); oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold = 14.6 ± 4.1 ml/kg per minute versus 14.9 ± 4.6 mL/kg per minute (NS); maximum minute ventilation = 49.6 ± 9 L/min versus 46 ± 12 L/min (NS); and respiratory quotient = 1.08 ± 0.15 versus 1.08 ± 0.13 (NS). We conclude that, during a 1-month follow-up period, no difference was found between DDD and dual sensor VVIR (QT and activity) pacing modes in CAVB patients with regard to quality-of-life and Cardiopulmonary performance, though a trend toward an increased sense of well being was noted with the DDD mode.     

Comparative Evaluation of Rate Modulated Dual Chamber and VVIR Pacing

JUTZY, R.V., ET AL.: Comparative Evaluation of Rate Modulated Dual Chamber and VVIR Pacing. While dual chamber pacing is considered superior to VVI pacing at rest, there is a continuing debate as to the relative benefit of AV synchrony versus rate increase with exercise. To evaluate this question and to correlate different methods of evaluation, 14 patients with DDDR pacemakers were studied using serial treadmill exercise test with a CAEP protocol. Patients were exercised in DDD, DDDR, and VVIR modes. Echo-Doppler cardiac outputs were determined and pulmonary gas exchange was measured during exercise. There was a significant improvement in cardiac output with exercise in the DDDR versus VVIR modes, and in DDDR versus DDD modes in patients with chronotropic incompetence. There were small increases in exercise duration in DDDR versus VVIR modes, and small but consistent increases in VO, at all levels of exercise, though not statistically significant. In this group of patients, DDDR pacing was superior to VVIR pacing, and superior to DDD pacing when chronotropic incompetence was present.     

Comparison of Ventricular Function in Atrial Rate Adaptive Versus Dual Chamber Rate Adaptive Pacing During Exercise

The hemodynamic effects of two different pacing modes—rate adaptive atrial (AAIR) versus dual chamber (DDDR) pacing—were assessed in 12 patients with DDDR pacemakers during upright bicycle exercise first-pass radionuclide angiography using a multiwire gamma camera with tantalum-178 as a tracer. All patients had sinus node disease with intact AV conduction. Patients exercised to the same heart rate in random order in these two different pacing modes, AAIR and DDDR with AV delay (of 100 msec) selected to maintain 100% ventricular capture. Cardiac output in creased significantly above baseline values during exercise in both pacing modes: 154 ± 41% (mean ± SEM, P = 0.002) with AAIR, versus 95 ± 24% (P = 0.004) with DDDR (P = NS between the two modes). The peak filling rate, likewise, increased in both pacing modes (2.3 ± 0.21 end-diastolic volumes/sec to 3.8 ± 0.31 end-diastolic volumes/sec in AAIR [P = 0.0004] and 2.2 ± 0.18 end-diastolic volumes/sec to 3.4 ± 0.27 end-diastolic volumes/sec in DDDR [P = 0.0008]). LV ejection fraction was normal at rest (60 ± 4%, SEM) and did not significantly change with submaximal exercise in either pacing mode (both 56%, P = NS). No significant changes in end-diastolic volume or stroke volume indexes occurred with exercise in either pacing mode. Our study demonstrates that in patients with normal resting LV function, AAIR and DDDR pacing are equally effective in attaining appropriate increases in cardiac output and LV filling during exercise.     

Circumvention of Maximum Tracking Limitations with a Rate Modulated Dual Chamber Pacemaker

A patient having high grade AV block with intact sinus node function is presented in whom DDDR pacing provided the benefit of preventing 2:1 pacemaker block in response to exercise-induced sinus tachycardia. In paired treadmill tests with the patient blinded as to pacing mode, she was able to exercise longer (7.5 vs 6.6 METS) when programmed in DDDR than in DDDO. This is attributable to circumvention of 2:1 pacemaker block which had resulted in abrupt onset of fatigue and SOB (shortness of breath) when the sinus rate exceeded the maximum tracking rate of 130/min. Outpatient ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring confirmed this phenomenon during relatively strenuous activity. The theoretic advantages of dual chamber rate modulated pacing compared to the DDDO and VVIR modes are discussed.     

Upgrade of permanent pacemakers and single chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators to pectoral dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators: indications,surgical approach,and long-term clinical results

The aim of this study was to describe the indications for upgrade of pacemakers (PMs) or single chamber (VVIR) ICDs to dual chamber (DDDR) ICDs, surgical approach, hardware hybridization, and clinical outcome. Patients with preexisting PMs or VVIR ICDs may develop indications for ICD therapy or dual chamber pacing, respectively, that can be served by DDDR ICDs that incorporate preexisting transvenous leads. Fifty-seven patients underwent upgrade from PMs (29/57) or VVIR ICDs (28/57) to pectoral DDDR ICDs. Preexisting transvenous atrial and/or ventricular leads suitable for continued use were incorporated into new DDDR ICDs in 88.5% and 100% of PM and VVIR ICD upgrades, respectively. Acceptable DFTs were achieved in 56 (98.2%) of 57 patients. Appropriate VT/VF therapies were registered among 33.3% of patients during follow-up. No shocks due to lead noise were observed in any patient with hybridized transvenous leads. Atrial far-field R wave (FFRW) oversensing occurred in 24% of DDDR ICD systems incorporating a preexisting atrial lead. FFRW was overcome by programming reduced atrial sensitivity without interfering with the normal ICD system performance in all instances. Upgrade of PMs and VVIR ICDs to pectoral DDDR ICDs is safe and technically feasible in most patients. Preexisting transvenous leads can be successfully incorporated into new DDDR ICDs, simplifying the surgical procedure, minimizing transvenous hardware, and eliminating the possibility of hazardous pacemaker-ICD interactions.     

Clinical Study of a New Activity Sensor for Rate Adaptive Pacing Controlled by Electrical Signals Generated by the Kinetic Energy of a Moving Magnetic Ball

A new rate adaptive pacemaker (Sensorithm) controlled by an activity sensor providing electrical signals induced by a magnetic ball moving freely in an elliptical cavity surrounded by two copper coils, was implanted in ten patients; mean age of 75 years (range 64–89). Six patients had atrioventricular block and four had sinus node disease. In auto-set testing procedure during a 1-minute walk in the corridor, a slope resulting in a maximum rate of 95 beats/min was selected in every patient, and a medium reaction time was programmed. During graded treadmill exercise tests the heart rate increased 63 ± 7 beats/min to 135 ± 6 beats/min in rate adaptive pacing mode (VVIR), and 15 ± 6 beats/min (P < 0.0001) in ventricular pacing mode (VVI). The symptom-limited exercise time was 9.1 ± 1.1 minutes and 8.2 ±1.2 minutes (P = NS), and the exercise distance was 501 ± 95 meters and 428 ± 92 meters (P < 0.05) in VVIR and VVI pacing mode, respectively. The maximum oxygen uptake was 20.6 ± 2.6 mL/kg per minute in VVIR pacing and 18.1 ± 2.1 mL/kg per minute (P < 0.05) in VVI pacing. The delay time until the pacing rate increased 10% of the total rate increase at onset of treadmill exercise was 4.4 ± 0.7 seconds. Assuming a linear relation between metabolic workload and heart rate response from rest to the age predicted maximum heart rate, a deviation of heart rate ranging from 13.5 ± 11.2% to –1.6 ± 5.2% from the expected heart rate at mid-point and endpoint of each quartile of workload was observed during treadmill testing. Conclusions : By using a 1 -minute walk test for selecting an appropriate slope setting, Sensorithm provided a significant and proportional heart rate increase during exercise resulting in an improvement of exercise capacity during VVIR pacing compared to VVI pacing.     

AAIR Versus DDDR Pacing in Patients with Impaired Sinus Node Chronotropy: An Echocardiographic and Cardiopulmonary Study

The aim of this study was to compare AAIR and DDDR pacing at rest and during exercise. We studied 15 patients (10 men, age 65 ± 6 years) who had been paced for at least 3 months with activity sensor rate modulated dual chamber pacemakers. All had sick sinus syndrome (SSS) with impaired sinus node chronotropy. The patients underwent a resting echocardiographic evaluation of systolic and diastolic LV function at 60 beats/min during AAIR and DDDR pacing with an AV delay, which ensured complete ventricular activation capture. Cardiac output (CO) was also measured during pacing at 100 beats/min in both pacing modes. Subsequently, the oxygen consumption (VO₂at) and VO₂at pulse at the anaerobic threshold were measured during exercise in AAIR mode and in DDDR mode with an AV delay of 120 ms. The indices of diastolic function showed no significant differences between the two pacing modes, except for patients with a stimulus-R interval > 220 ms, for whom the time velocity integral of LV filling and LV inflow time were significantly lower under AAI than under DDD pacing. At 60 beats/min, CO was higher under AAI than under DDD mode only when the stimulus-R interval was below 220 ms. For stimulus-R intervals longer than 220 ms, and also during pacing at 100 beats/min, the CO was higher in DDD mode. The stimulus-R interval decreased in all patients during exercise. The time to anaerobic threshold, VO₂at ond VO₂at pulse showed no significant differences between the two pacing modes. Our results indicate that, at rest, although AAIR pacing does not improve diastolic function in patients with SSS, it maintains a higher CO than does DDDR pacing in cases where the stimulus-R interval is not excessively prolonged. On exertion, the two pacing modes appear to be equally effective, at least in cases where the stimulus-R interval decreases in AAIR mode.