The effect of posture on the response to atrioventricular synchronous pacing in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease

A novel temporary atrioventricular sequential pacing catheter-Characteristics and first-in-human application

BACKGROUND

Sequential synchronized atrioventricular (AV) pacing provides enhanced electrophysiologic parameters which contribute to improved hemodynamic parameters and increased cardiac performance to subsequently confer a clinical advantage over traditional ventricular pacing. Current temporary transvenous pacemaker catheters are limited to only one electrode which paces solely the right ventricle, thus lacking the capability to provide the optimal pacing mode. A new multilead pacemaker device was developed in response to the need for improved temporary pacing through the utilization of sequential synchronized atrioventricular pacing (TAVSP). It consists of seven preformed, preshaped nitinol wires electrodes, of which four are for intra-atrial and three for intraventricular positioning and endocardial contact, respectively. Each wire carries a ball tip designed to minimize tissue trauma and provide a high current density for adequate myocardial capture. The device is not yet Food and Drug Administration approved.

OBJECTIVE

To present the unique structural components and mechanical properties of a novel sequential synchronized AV pacing device for temporary insertion and to report its first-in-human application with an analysis of the early clinical experience.

METHODS

Following a process of development and proof of concept of the novel pacing modality in an animal model which demonstrated feasibility and safety, a series of patients who were candidates for the device application was identified. During left and right heart catheterization, the novel temporary pacing catheter was inserted transvenously and delivered in most patients under fluoroscopy or echocardiography. The catheter was deployed to its target right heart anatomic sites and then activated in an AV sequential mode. The technical aspects, the corresponding clinical utilization, and device performance were documented and analyzed.

RESULTS

The series included 10 enrolled subjects. During planned left and right heart catheterization, the novel TAVSP device was inserted transvenously and then delivered and deployed successfully in a timely fashion in all patients. The pacing catheter achieved proper threshold and impedance in all (100%) patients. The performance of all ventricular leads was adequate; however, in 1 (10%) patient poor performance of the atrial leads was detected. The device was successfully retrieved in all patients. No adverse arrhythmia, impaired hemodynamics, or clinical adverse events occurred. No technical difficulties, component failure, or wires thrombosis were detected. All patients sustained the device application without sequala and were discharged home.

CONCLUSION

Initial clinical experience with the utilization of a novel TAVSP demonstrates feasibility and safety in humans. The TAVSP modality potentially offers improved pacing capability and subsequent hemodynamic benefits over the current temporary pacing catheters. Further experience with the clinical application of this pacing catheter is warranted.

The role of pacing in rhythm control and management of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia and is increasing in prevalence with an ageing population. As the arrhythmia is often asymptomatic the true prevalence is likely even higher. Largely because of stroke this arrhythmia places a huge financial burden on the health economy. Despite this, large studies assessing rate versus rhythm control have been equivocal. Because of the ineffectiveness of pharmacological therapy much research effort has been undertaken in device and ablative approaches to rhythm management. Although catheter ablation has gained favour because of the high success rates the technique requires considerable expertise and still has a significant complication profile maintaining interest in pacing therapies for atrial fibrillation. Dual chamber versus single-chamber ventricular pacing has been shown to significantly reduce the incidence of atrial fibrillation. Research is currently underway to see if minimising the deleterious effects of right ventricular apical pacing could further increase the benefits of atrioventricular synchronous pacing. Several studies show some (albeit variable) reduction in AF burden with anti-AF algorithms in the setting of bradycardia. Antitachycardia pacing, on the other hand, has not been shown to treat AF in a randomised trial despite the successful termination of co-existent atrial tachycardias. There is increasing evidence that alternative atrial pacing sites may treat AF by improving atrial function. Furthermore, these strategies coupled with other therapies in a 'hybrid approach' have also showed promising results.

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.

Permanent pacemaker selection and subsequent survival in elderly Medicare pacemaker recipients

BACKGROUND

Dual-chamber pacemakers have been in use for more than 15 years. Although they may confer a physiological advantage over single-chamber ventricular pacemakers, they are more expensive and have a generally shorter service life than single-chamber devices. We carried out the present study to identify patient subgroups who were preferentially receiving greater or lesser proportions of dual-chamber devices and to determine whether the selection of different types of pacemakers was associated with differences in mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed a 20% random national sample of all Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who underwent initial placement of a permanent pacemaker and were discharged in 1988, 1989, or 1990 (n = 36,312). The minimum follow-up for vital status was 1 year. The relation of pacemaker type to patient and provider characteristics was determined using logistic regression analysis. The relation between pacemaker type and mortality was determined using the Cox proportional hazards method. The proportion of dual-chamber systems that were received increased from 27.2% in 1988 to 37.0% in 1990 (P < .001). Dual-chamber pacemaker recipients were younger (P < .001) than ventricular pacemaker recipients. Other independent correlates of dual-chamber pacemaker selection included male sex (odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals, 1.18 and 1.12 to 1.24, respectively), atrioventricular block (1.59 and 1.51 to 1.67), congestive heart failure (1.14 and 1.08 to 1.20), atrial fibrillation (0.36 and 0.34 to 0.39), and the presence of a major noncardiac diagnosis (0.86 and 0.83 to 0.89). Nonmedical predictors of dual-chamber pacemaker selection included Medicaid eligibility (0.78 and 0.71 to 0.86), implantation in the western United States (1.19 and 1.10 to 1.29), implantation by a rural provider (0.70 and 0.65 to 0.76), hospitalization in a 500-bed-or-larger hospital (1.20 and 1.13 to 1.28), hospitalization in a private hospital (1.19 and 1.10 to 1.28), or hospitalization in a hospital with a catheterization laboratory (1.47 and 1.38 to 1.56). Dual-chamber pacemaker selection was an independent predictor of survival at 1 year (0.82 and 0.77 to 0.87) and at 2 years (0.82 and 0.77 to 0.87) after controlling for potentially confounding patient-level and hospital-level characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study describes important variations in the clinical practice of cardiac pacing, many of which are not based on clinical characteristics. Furthermore, the selection of a dual-chamber pacemaker is associated with increased survival. These results underscore the need for prospective, outcome-based clinical trials of pacemaker mode selection.

Orthostatic responses in patients with DDD pacemakers: signs of autonomic dysfunction

Responses to orthostasis may be altered in states associated with autonomic dysfunction. Computerized impedance cardiography, a noninvasive method for continuous assessment of stroke volume and mean blood pressure, was utilized to study the postural hemodynamic changes in eight normal and 27 patients with DDD pacemakers. Twenty patients with complete heart block (five with heart failure) were studied in the VDD mode and seven patients with sick sinus syndrome were assessed in DVI (four) or VDD (three). The results with pacemaker patients are significantly different from those observed in normal. Pacemaker patient responses to standing included: (1) a reduction in systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure; (2) an increase in heart rate in patients with intact sinus node function and no change in patients with sick sinus syndrome; and (3) stroke volume was unchanged in patients with sick sinus syndrome or heart failure and only modest reduction occurred in the remaining patients.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) No reduction in stroke volume during upright posture occurs in DDD patients with sick sinus syndrome and this appears to be a compensatory reaction to an inadequate heart rate response to standing; (2) The hemodynamic response of DDD patients to the assumption of an upright posture is consistent with autonomic dysfunction; and (3) The primary cause for autonomic dysfunction in DDD patients may be the asynchronous ventricular depolarization caused by right ventricular pacing.