Importance of heart rate response during exercise in patients using atrioventricular synchronous and ventricular pacemakers

Rate adaptive pacing in people with chronic heart failure increases peak heart rate but not peak exercise capacity: a systematic review

Rate adaptive cardiac pacing (RAP) allows increased heart rate (HR) in response to metabolic demand in people with implantable electronic cardiac devices (IECD). The aim of this work was to conduct a systematic review to determine if RAP increases peak exercise capacity (peak VO₂) in line with peak HR in people with chronic heart failure. We conducted a systematic literature search from 1980, when IECD and RAP were first introduced, until 31 July 2021. Databases searched include PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, EBSCO, and the Clinical Trials Register. A comprehensive search of the literature produced a total of 246 possible studies; of these, 14 studies were included. Studies and subsequent analyses were segregated according to comparison, specifically standard RAP (RAPON) vs fixed rate pacing (RAPOFF), and tailored RAP (TLD RAPON) vs standard RAP (RAPON). Pooled analyses were conducted for peak VO₂ and peak HR for RAPON vs RAPOFF. Peak HR significantly increased by 15 bpm with RAPON compared to RAPOFF (95%CI, 7.98-21.97, P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between pacing mode for peak VO₂ 0.45 ml kg^-1 min^-1 (95%CI, - 0.55-1.47, P = 0.38). This systematic review revealed RAP increased peak HR in people with CHF; however, there was no concomitant improvement in peak VO₂. Rather RAP may provide benefits at submaximal intensities by controlling the rise in HR to optimise cardiac output at lower workloads. HR may be an important outcome of CHF management, reflecting myocardial efficiency.

Personalized Rate-Response Programming Improves Exercise Tolerance After 6 Months in People With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Heart Failure

Background:

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is characterized by blunting of the positive relationship between heart rate and left ventricular (LV) contractility known as the force-frequency relationship (FFR). We have previously described that tailoring the rate-response programming of cardiac implantable electronic devices in patients with HFrEF on the basis of individual noninvasive FFR data acutely improves exercise capacity. We aimed to examine whether using FFR data to tailor heart rate response in patients with HFrEF with cardiac implantable electronic devices favorably influences exercise capacity and LV function 6 months later.

Methods:

We conducted a single-center, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trial in patients with stable symptomatic HFrEF taking optimal guideline-directed medical therapy and with a cardiac implantable electronic device (cardiac resynchronization therapy or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). Participants were randomized on a 1:1 basis between tailored rate-response programming on the basis of individual FFR data and conventional age-guided rate-response programming. The primary outcome measure was change in walk time on a treadmill walk test. Secondary outcomes included changes in LV systolic function, peak oxygen consumption, and quality of life.

Results:

We randomized 83 patients with a mean±SD age 74.6±8.7 years and LV ejection fraction 35.2±10.5. Mean change in exercise time at 6 months was 75.4 (95% CI, 23.4 to 127.5) seconds for FFR-guided rate-adaptive pacing and 3.1 (95% CI, −44.1 to 50.3) seconds for conventional settings (analysis of covariance; P =0.044 between groups) despite lower peak mean±SD heart rates (98.6±19.4 versus 112.0±20.3 beats per minute). FFR-guided heart rate settings had no adverse effect on LV structure or function, whereas conventional settings were associated with a reduction in LV ejection fraction.

Conclusions:

In this phase II study, FFR-guided rate-response programming determined using a reproducible, noninvasive method appears to improve exercise time and limit changes to LV function in people with HFrEF and cardiac implantable electronic devices. Work is ongoing to confirm our findings in a multicenter setting and on longer-term clinical outcomes.

Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02964650.

Dual chamber versus single chamber ventricular pacemakers for sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

Dual chamber pacing or single chamber atrial pacing ('physiologic' pacing) is believed to have an advantage over single chamber ventricular pacing in that it resembles cardiac physiology more closely by maintaining atrioventricular (AV) synchrony and dominance of the sinus node, which in turn may reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality thus contributing to patient survival and quality of life. However, a significant proportion of pacemakers currently implanted are single chamber ventricular pacemakers.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the short- and long-term clinical effectiveness of dual chamber pacemakers compared to single chamber ventricular pacemakers in adults with AV block, sick sinus syndrome or both. An additional objective was to assess separately any potential differences in effectiveness between dual chamber pacing and single chamber atrial pacing. The clinical effectiveness of single chamber atrial pacing versus single chamber ventricular pacing was not examined.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to 2002), EMBASE (1980 to 2002) and the Science Citation Index (1980 to 2002) were searched on 19th August 2002. Citation lists and web sites were checked and researchers in the field contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel group or crossover randomised controlled trials of at least 48 hours duration comparing dual chamber pacing and single chamber ventricular pacing, and investigating cardiovascular morbidity, mortality, patient related quality of life, exercise capacity and complication rates.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted onto pre-piloted data extraction forms. Quality assessment was undertaken using a checklist, with a sub-sample of quality data independently extracted by a second reviewer. Where appropriate data was available, meta-analysis was performed. Where meta-analysis was not possible, the number of studies showing a positive, neutral or negative direction of effect and statistical significance were simply counted.

MAIN RESULTS

Five parallel and 26 crossover randomised controlled trials were identified. The quality of reporting was found to be poor. Pooled data from parallel studies shows a statistically non-significant preference for physiologic pacing (primarily dual chamber pacing) for the prevention of stroke, heart failure and mortality, and a statistically significant beneficial effect regarding the prevention of atrial fibrillation (odds ratio (OR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93). Both parallel and crossover studies favour dual chamber pacing with regard to pacemaker syndrome (parallel: Peto OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.14; crossover: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, 95% CI - 0.95 to -0.52). Pooled data from crossover studies shows a statistically significant trend towards dual chamber pacing being more favourable in terms of exercise capacity (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.45). No individual studies reported a significantly more favourable outcome with single chamber ventricular pacing.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows a trend towards greater effectiveness with dual chamber pacing compared to single chamber ventricular pacing, which supports the current British Pacing and Electrophysiology Group's Guidelines regarding atrioventricular block. Additional randomised controlled trial evidence from ongoing trials in this area will further inform the debate.

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 +/- 9L/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.

Benefits and limitations of rate adaptive pacing under laboratory and daily life conditions in patients with minute ventilation single chamber pacemakers

Rate adaptive pacing has been shown to improve hemodynamic performance and exercise tolerance during acute testing. However, there remain concerns about its benefit in daily life and possible complications incurred by unnecessary pacing. This double-blind crossover study compared the benefit of rate adaptive (SSIR) versus fixed rate (SSI) pacing under laboratory and daily life conditions in 20 rate incompetent patients with minute ventilation single chamber pacemakers (META II). The heart rate (HR) response during three different exercise tests (treadmill, bicycle ergometry, walking test) was correlated with the Holter findings during daily life in either pacing mode. The maximal HR was significantly higher in the SSIR-mode compared to the SSI-mode, both during laboratory testing (treadmill: 123 +/- 15 vs 93 +/- 29 beats/min; ergometry: 118 +/- 15 vs 89 +/- 27 beats/min; walking test: 127 +/- 9 vs 95 +/- 26 beats/min, all P values < 0.01) as well as during daily life (Holter: 126 +/- 13 vs 103 +/- 24 beats/min, P < 0.01). On Holter, the average HR (71 +/- 14 vs 71 +/- 8 beats/min) and the percentage of paced rhythm (54% vs 62%, SSI- vs SSIR-mode, P = NS) were not different in either mode. However, despite a 30% rate gain in the SSIR-mode, the exercise capacity remained unchanged, and only 38% of patients preferred the SSIR-mode. Minute ventilation pacemakers provide a physiological rate response to exercise. Irrespective of the protocol used, the findings of laboratory testing are comparable to those during daily life. However, patient selection for rate adaptive single chamber pacing should be made with caution, since the objective benefit of restoring normal chronotropy may subjectively be negligible for most patients.

An approach in the assessment of pacing hemodynamics: a comparison of VVI and DDD

Previous methods for assessment of pacemaker hemodynamics have been limited to a rigid hospital environment. An alternative is the ambulatory ventricular function monitor (C-VEST) that, with a single injection of technetium-99m, permits the continuous measurement of relative ejection fraction (EF) and cardiac output (CO) during the activities of daily living. A study of reproducibility and a comparison of dual chamber (DDD) and fixed rate ventricular (VVI) pacing are presented. Reproducibility was assessed in six patients (4 males; mean age 58, range 27-78 years) with a mean EF of 48.5% (range 34%-62%) and DDD pacemakers, implanted for conduction abnormalities. In addition, 11 patients (7 males; mean age 55.5, range 34-75 years) with a mean EF of 48.5% (range 34%-65%), chronic complete heart block, and DDD pacemakers were used for the comparative study. After an initial multigated scan, the monitor was positioned over the left ventricle and kept in place with the plastic C-VEST. The patients undergoing the reproducibility study performed three shuttle walking tests with 20 minutes of rest in between. The patients in the comparative study were randomized to either VVI or DDD mode and performed one shuttle walking test in each pacing mode. The results confirmed that the C-VEST produces reproducible results with no significant difference in peak CO between the three shuttle walks. In addition, it confirmed previous hemodynamic studies showing that DDD pacing was superior to VVI pacing both at rest (P < 0.004) and at exercise (P < 0.002). These findings show the C-VEST to be an extremely useful tool for the hemodynamic assessment of pacemaker patients.

Cardiac output in single-lead VDD pacing versus rate-matched VVIR pacing

The importance of atrioventricular synchronous pacing compared with single-chamber rate-responsive pacing is still under discussion, especially for low-intensity workload representing daily life activities. We evaluated hemodynamics in single-lead VDD pacing versus VVIR pacing in 11 patients (8 men and 3 women, aged 58.6 +/- 13.8 years) with normal left ventricular function and a previously implanted single-lead VDDR pacemaker. A low-intensity steady-state treadmill test at 1 to 2.5 mph with a gradient of 2% to 4% was performed. Cardiac output was determined using a standard carbon dioxide rebreathing technique. Initially, the VDD mode was programmed, and after 5 minutes of exercise, cardiac output was measured in steady-state conditions. The pacemaker was then reprogrammed to the VVI mode at a rate 5 to 10 beats above the maximal atrial tracking rate to simulate rate-matched VVIR pacing (VVIRm). After 5 additional minutes of steady-state exercise, cardiac output was measured again. The maximal atrial rate in the VDD mode was 119 +/- 19 beats/min versus a programmed rate of 129 +/- 18 beats/min in the VVIRm mode. VDD pacing resulted in a significantly higher cardiac output than VVIRm pacing (10.6 +/- 1.9 vs 9.2 +/- 1.4 L/min; p < 0.002), with a mean difference of 1.6 +/- 1.2 L/min between the 2 modes. In the VDD mode, stroke volume (90.7 +/- 20.1 vs 71.6 +/- 13.0 ml; p < 0.001) and maximal oxygen uptake (1,183 +/- 264 vs 1,076 +/- 289 ml/min, p < 0.01) were also higher than in VVIRm.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Physical work capacity with rate responsive ventricular pacing (VVIR) versus dual chamber pacing (DDD) in patients with normal and diminished left ventricular function

To determine the benefit of atrial contribution on work capacity in relation to left ventricular ejection fraction, we studied 17 patients (68 +/- 13 years) with dual chamber pacemakers (DDD) implanted for high degree atrioventricular (AV) block. In random order they were assigned to rate responsive ventricular (VVIR) and to atrial triggered ventricular (VDD) stimulation. Maximum oxygen uptake (max VO2), that correlates best with work capacity, was measured by spiroergometry at a respiratory quotient of 1.1 during treadmill exercise test. Left ventricular ejection fraction at rest was determined by radionuclide ventriculography during VDD-stimulation and an AV delay of 150 ms. There were no differences between these two pacing modes relating heart rate, blood pressure, minute ventilation, exercise duration and maximal work load. In eight patients with an ejection fraction > 50% (60 +/- 10%), but not in nine patients with an ejection fraction < 50% (41 +/- 10%), maximum oxygen uptake was significantly higher (P < 0.01) during atrial triggered ventricular pacing (1440 +/- 533 ml/min) compared with rate responsive ventricular pacing (1328 +/- 536 ml/min). Thus, rate responsive single chamber pacemakers largely enable the same work capacity as dual chamber pacemakers in patients with high degree AV block. Patients with normal left ventricular function may profit most from preserved AV synchrony as shown by the higher maximum oxygen uptake on exercise.

Intrinsic Heart Rate Response as a Predictor of Rate-Adaptive Pacing Benefit

OBJECTIVE

More than half of the pacemaker systems now being implanted can be rate adaptively paced. Our objective was to determine which patients benefit from rate-adaptive pacing in terms of improvement in maximum performance and aerobic capacity.

METHODS

Thirty patients with implanted accelerometer-driven, rate-adaptive pacemakers underwent a standardized, ergospirometrically and maximally symptoms = limited cardiopulmonary exercise (CPX) stress test with both rate-adaptive and fixed-rate stimulation in a randomized order. The patients were divided into three groups depending on the intrinsic heart rate achieved during maximum workload: group 1 achieved < or = 90 beats per minute (bpm), group 2 achieved 90 to < or = 110 bpm, and group 3 achieved > 110 bpm.

RESULTS

Group 1 demonstrated a significant increase (p < or = 0.01) in maximum oxygen uptake from 16.4 +/- 5.6 mL/kg/min with fixed-rate pacing to 23.2 +/- 11.1 mL/kg/min (+ 41.5%) with rate-adaptive pacing. At the anaerobic threshold, oxygen uptake significantly increased (p < or = 0.01) from 11.8 +/- 2.7 mL/kg/min to 15.7 +/- 5 mL/kg/min (+33.1%). Group 2 patients showed an increase in maximum oxygen uptake from 23.3 +/- 5.4 mL/kg/min to 25.3 +/- 4.9 mL/kg/min (+8.5%, p < or = 0.05) as well as an increase in oxygen uptake at the anaerobic threshold from 15.9 +/- 2.6 mL/kg/min to 18.1 +/- 2.9 mL/kg/min (+13.8%, p < or = 0.05) with rate-adaptive pacing. Group 3 demonstrated no significant difference between the two pacing methods (from 25.6 +/- 9.4 mL/kg/min to 25.9 +/- 9.3 mL/kg/min and from 15.8 +/- 5.5 mL/kg/min to 16.3 +/- 6 mL/kg/min). No difference in maximum oxygen uptake and in oxygen uptake at the anaerobic threshold was evident among the three groups when paced rate adaptively (not significant).

CONCLUSION

The second-generation, accelerometer controlled rate-adaptive pacemakers used in testing enabled a stress-oriented heart rate increase and an age- and gender-dependent adequate matching of maximum performance. The benefit from a rate-adaptive system to the patient increases as his or her chronotropic reserve limitation became more pronounced.

Importance of an individually programmed atrioventricular delay at rest and on work capacity in patients with dual chamber pacemakers

Despite higher costs, expenditure, and the necessity of repeatedly reprogramming of dual chamber pacemakers, they are increasingly implanted to achieve an optimal work capacity. The influence of an individually programmed atrioventricular (AV) delay between 100-250 msec on physical work capacity in 12 patients (68 +/- 16 years) with dual chamber pacemakers implanted for high degree AV block was studied. During radionuclide ventriculography at rest the "optimal AV delay" with the maximal achieved left ventricular ejection fraction and the "most unfavorable AV delay" with the least achieved ejection fraction were determined. The ejection fraction at rest with the "optimal AV delay" was 51 +/- 14% and with the "most unfavorable AV delay" 45 +/- 15% (P < 0.001). In random order each patient was assigned to either AV delay and a spiroergometry was performed to determine maximum oxygen uptake (max VO2), which correlates best with work capacity, at a respiratory quotient of 1.1. The results show neither a difference in maximum oxygen uptake (1,262 +/- 446 mL/min with the optimal AV delay, 1,248 +/- 400 mL/min with the most unfavorable AV delay, respectively) nor in heart rate, blood pressure, exercise duration, maximal workload, and minute ventilation. Thus, an individually programmed AV delay affects left ventricular ejection fraction at rest. In contrast, an individually programmed AV delay has no influence on physical work capacity in patients with a dual chamber pacemaker.