Variability of left atrial bloodflow predicts intolerance of ventricular demand pacing and may cause pacemaker syndrome

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.

Inhibition of ventricular stimulation in patients with dual chamber pacemakers and prolonged AV conduction

Episodes of repetitive P wave undersensing have been described in dual chamber pacemakers due to automatic extension of the postventricular atrial refractory period (PVARP). Pacemaker stimulation was completely inhibited despite the presence of adequate P waves. This study sought to determine whether cycles of repetitive P wave undersensing occur even in the absence of PVARP extension. Two-hundred fifty-five patients were investigated after DDD or VDD pacemaker implantation for intermittent atrioventricular (AV) block. Forty-six episodes of repetitive atrial undersensing were found during 24-hour Holter ECG in nine patients. Pacemaker syndrome-like symptoms occurred. Episodes were elicited by atrial or ventricular premature contractions when (1) native AV conduction was present but considerably prolonged, (2) intrinsic sinus rate exceeded pacemaker intervention rate, and (3) native AV interval plus PVARP exceeded sinus cycle length. Programming of a particularly short AV interval and PVARP helped to reduce the incidence of repetitive P wave undersensing. Patients with dual chamber devices and prolonged native AV conduction are prone to develop episodes of output inhibition. Standard timing cycles may be inappropriate in these patients.

Left atrial function and atrial natriuretic factor/cyclic guanosine monophosphate changes in DDD and VVI pacing modes

Left atrial systolic function and the plasma of atrial natriuretic factor (ANF) and cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) were investigated as possible markers for the development of pacemaker syndrome during VVI pacing. Patients who developed pacemaker syndrome during VVI pacing had a significant decrease in left atrial emptying fraction and a substantial increase in ANF and cGMP plasma levels.

Noninvasive beat-to-beat arterial blood pressure measurement during VVI and DDD pacing: relationship to symptomatic benefit from DDD pacing

To noninvasively assess the hemodynamic effects of VVI and DDD pacing modes we measured beat-to-beat arterial blood pressure during VVI and DDD pacing in 30 patients with complete heart block (CHB), using fingertip photoplethysmography. Of these patients, 15 undertook a double-blind cross-over comparison of the symptomatic effects of VVI versus DDD pacing to determine the relationship between blood pressure changes and the occurrence of symptoms suggestive of the pacemaker syndrome during ventricular pacing. Mean (SD) systolic blood pressure was 11.7 (15.4) mmHg lower during VVI pacing compared to DDD pacing (P < 0.0005). The mean (SD) beat-to-beat variability of systolic blood pressure was 5.20 (2.87%) in VVI mode versus 2.12 (1.07%) in DDD mode (P < 0.0000005). In comparison with DDD pacing, the excess of symptoms experienced by patients during VVI pacing did not correlate with the change in mean systolic blood pressure, but was significantly correlated with the increase in beat-to-beat systolic blood pressure variation during VVI pacing (r = 0.58, P = 0.024). We conclude that noninvasive measurement of fingertip arterial beat-to-beat blood pressure is a rapid and simple method of assessing the hemodynamic effect of VVI pacing. Beat-to-beat blood pressure variability was related to symptomatic intolerance of VVI pacing and may have potential utility as an aid to diagnosis or as a predictor of pacemaker syndrome.