Reasons for reprogramming dual chamber pacemakers to VVI mode: a retrospective review using a computer database

VDD Lead-Lead Interaction and Atrial Oversensing: An Acute Animal Study

Limited data exist on the utilization of a transvenous A-sense; V-pace/sense (VDD)pacing system with a chronically retained nonfunctioning endocardial V-sense/pace (VVI)pacing lead. In an acute canine model, no atrial oversensing was observed with lead-lead interaction between the VDD lead and the pseudo-retained VVI lead. Undersensing occurred <10% of all beats observed.

Development of atrial fibrillation in patients with atrioventricular block after atrioventricular synchronized pacing

Many studies have evidenced an increased incidence of AF in patients receiving single chamber ventricular pacing (VVI) when compared with those undergoing an atrial-based system (AAI or DDD). However, the difference in incidence of AF between two atrial-based systems (VDD, DDD) in patients with AV block was still controversial. This study was conducted to compare the development of AF between different modes of pacemakers (VDD and DDD) in patients with symptomatic AV block. A retrospective review was conducted of the detailed records of all consecutive patients who received permanent pacemakers due to symptomatic bradycardia from March 1995 to March 2000. The occurrence of AF was documented when there was presence of AF in the free-run or 12-lead ECG, any ECG strips, or persistent AF on 24-hour Holter ECG during the follow-up. The study included 152 patients (44 women, 108 men; mean age 73). The patients were divided into two groups: VDD (n = 100) and DDD (n = 52). The mean follow-up was 48.9 +/- 22.9 months. The incidence of AF was 7.9%. A higher incidence of AF was noted in the DDD group (15.4%) when compared with the VDD group (4.0%, P = 0.023). The incidence of development of AF in patients with AV block was higher in those receiving DDD cardiac pacing when compared with those who received the VDD system. The authors suggest that VDD pacing may be a better choice than the DDD system for patients with AV block, but without clinical evidence of sinus node dysfunction, and if an atrial lead is required, it should be placed close to the Bachmann's bundle.

Age dependency of sensing performance and AV synchrony in single lead VDD pacing

Implantation of single lead VDD pacemakers is an established therapeutic option in patients with AV block and normal sinus node function. However, related to occurrence of sinus node disease and atrial undersensing, there is concern whether VDD devices are appropriate in physically active young patients. Two hundred thirty-two consecutive patients with isolated AV block and VDD pacemakers were investigated. This population was subdivided into quartiles of 58 patients according to age at time of inclusion: 26.2-59.4 years (group A), 59.5-70.1 years (group B), 70.2-81.0 years (group C), and 81.1-92.5 years (group D). Follow-up visits included pacemaker telemetry, Holter monitoring, and exercise testing. Patients were visited at 2 and 12 weeks after implantation thereafter followed by 6-month intervals. Mean follow-up period was 35 +/- 14 months. Three months after implantation, atrial sensing threshold was significantly higher in young patients: 1.18 +/- 0.58 mV (group A) versus 0.79 +/- 0.35 mV (group B), 0.68 +/- 0.33 mV (group C), and 0.60 +/- 0.25 mV (group D), P < 0.001 for comparison of group A to all other groups. Atrial undersensing was observed less frequently in young patients: 6.9% (group A) versus 17.2% (group B), 24.1% (group C), and 27.6% (group D), P = 0.025 for intergroup comparisons. Sinus node dysfunction did not occur in group A. Atrial arrhythmias and loss of AV synchronized pacing mode occurred rarely in young patients: 0.6% (0.4%) per year in group A versus 1.3% (1.3%) in group B, 3.9% (3.4%) in group C, and 5.7% (7.4%) per year in group D, P < 0.01 for intergroup comparisons. Our data show good atrial sensing performance, low incidence of sinus node dysfunction, and few atrial arrhythmias in young patients with VDD pacing for AV block. Thus, single lead VDD pacing can be recommended particularly for young patients with AV block.

Atrial sensing and AV synchrony in single lead VDD pacemakers: a prospective comparison to DDD devices with bipolar atrial leads

INTRODUCTION

Single lead VDD pacing has offered an alternative to DDD systems in patients with isolated AV block. Up to now, however, the relative performance of these pacemaker systems was not systematically compared.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Three hundred sixty patients who received either a VDD pacemaker (n = 180) or a DDD device (n = 180) with a bipolar atrial lead were investigated prospectively for a mean period of 30 +/- 13 months. Pacemaker function was analyzed by telemetry, Holter monitoring, and exercise ECG. Time of implantation and fluoroscopy was significantly lower with VDD devices (44.3 +/- 5.1 min vs 74.4 +/- 13.5 min and 4.6 +/- 2.5 min vs 10.3 +/- 5.6 min in DDD pacemakers, respectively). Intermittent atrial undersensing occurred in 23.3% of patients with a VDD pacemaker and in 9.4% with DDD devices (NS). The incidence of atrial tachyarrhythmias did not differ between the VDD (6.7%) and the DDD group (6.1%). Sinus node dysfunction developed in 1.9% of patients, but the vast majority (85.7%) of patients were asymptomatic. There was a tendency for a higher rate of operative revisions in the DDD group (6.1% vs 3.3% in VDD pacemakers, P = 0.15). Cumulative maintenance of AV-synchronized pacing mode was 94.9% in patients with VDD pacemakers and 92.1% with DDD devices (NS).

CONCLUSION

With the benefit of a simpler implant procedure, long-term outcome of single lead VDD pacing is equivalent to DDD pacing in patients with AV block and preoperative normal sinus node function.

Single-lead VDD pacing: long-term experience with four different systems

BACKGROUND

Previous multicenter studies have shown that single-lead VDD pacing systems provide satisfactory atrial-triggered ventricular pacing at middle term for treatment of atrioventricular block without sinus dysfunction. However, we lack data on long-term results obtained with different VDD systems implanted in a large number of patients from a single center.

METHODS

One hundred fifty patients (76 +/- 11 years) with second- or third-degree atrioventricular block (n = 147) or symptomatic hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n = 3) without sinus dysfunction were paced with four different VDD pacing systems able to sense the atrium and to pace the ventricle. Atrioventricular synchronization was assessed during follow-up by ECG and Holter monitoring.

RESULTS

Mean value of the atrial electrogram during implantation was 2.01 +/- 0.94 mV without any differences among the four systems. With a mean follow-up of 24 +/- 11 months, 95% of patients remain paced in VDD mode, whereas 5% have been reprogrammed in VVI or VVIR mode for permanent atrial fibrillation or loss of atrial sensing; 96% of patients with sinus atrium have atrioventricular synchronization >90% and 94% of patients have >95%, without significant difference between the four systems used.

CONCLUSIONS

These different single-lead VDD systems can provide satisfactory long-term atrioventricular synchronization; results are comparable to those obtained with conventional DDD pacing systems with two leads.

[Pacemaker therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation]

Pacemaker therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation means the best current pacemaker therapy for patients with bradycardias with the aim to avoid the onset of atrial fibrillation and to establish DDD pacing despite of a history of atrial tachyarrhythmias. The newer application of pacing is the suppression of atrial arrhythmias in patients with medical refractory atrial tachyarrhythmias. Patients with slow ventricular rates and permanent atrial fibrillation should receive a VVI-pacemaker, if the bradycardias causes syncope, dizziness or a decrease of their exercise tolerance. In case of chronotropic incompetence the pacemaker should provide rate responsive pacing. Patients with sick sinus syndrome should receive an atrial (AAI) or dual-chamber (DDD) pacemaker, because patients with these in contrast to VVI-pacemakers develop less often atrial fibrillation and subsequent complications such as atrial thromboembolism. A dual-chamber or VDD-pacemaker--the latter connected to a VDD-single-lead--is indicated in patients with advanced AV-block. Atrial fibrillation occurs in 3 to 6% of the patients with no history of arrythmia and is, if pacemakers have no automatic mode switch, an often reason to program the devices to the VVI-pacing mode. Nowadays, most DDD(R)-pacemakers provide an automatic mode switch: During an atrial tachycardia the pacemaker switches to a VVI/VVIR mode and restores the initial DDD(R)-pacing mode with termination of the arrhythmia. In respect to the newer applications, one approach to prevent atrial tachyarrhythmias is permanent atrial pacing. As lower pacing rates of 80 to 90 ppm are usually needed and many patients hardly tolerate these pacing rates, new algorithms are under clinical investigation. Another approach is the simultaneous depolarization of the right and left atrium. Biatrial pacing is performed with one lead in the high right atrium and another lead in the coronary sinus. Another solution is bifocal atrial pacing with leads placed in the high right atrium and in the coronary sinus ostium. One effect of the new pacing techniques is to shorten interatrial conduction times. Therefore, biatrial pacing has become a therapy to prevent atrial arrhythmias deriving from delayed interatrial conduction times. As atrial reentry circuits seem to be important in atrial fibrillation, multisite atrial pacing is also performed in patients with medical refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Preliminary results suggest a more effective prevention of atrial fibrillation; nevertheless, these techniques should be still restricted to patients enrolled in clinical studies.

Dual chamber pacing: how many patients remain in DDD mode over the long term?

OBJECTIVE

DDD pacing is better than VVI pacing in complete heart block and sick sinus syndrome but is more expensive and demanding. In addition, some patients have to be programmed out of DDD mode and this may have an important impact on the cost-effectiveness of DDD pacing. The purpose of this study was to determine how many patients remain in DDD mode over the long term (up to 10 years).

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of the outcome over 10 years of consecutive patients who had their pacemakers programmed initially in DDD mode.

SETTING

A district general hospital.

PATIENTS

249 patients with DDD pacemakers. Sixty two patients (24.9%) had predominantly sick sinus syndrome and 180 (72.3%) had predominantly atrioventricular conduction disease. Mean (range) complete follow up for this group of patients was 32 months (1-10 years).

RESULTS

Cumulative survival of DDD mode was 83.5% at 60 months. Atrial fibrillation was the commonest reason for abandonment of DDD pacing. Atrial fibrillation developed in 30 patients (12%), with atrial flutter in three (1.2%). Loss of atrial sensing or pacing, pacemaker mediated tachycardia, and various other reasons accounted for reprogramming out of DDD mode in eight patients (3.2%). Overall, an atrial pacing mode was maintained in 91% and VVI pacing was needed in only 9%.

CONCLUSIONS

With careful use of programming facilities and appropriate secondary intervention, most patients with dual chamber pacemakers can be maintained successfully in DDD or an alternative atrial pacing mode until elective replacement, although atrial arrhythmia remains a significant problem. There are no good reasons, other than cost, for not using dual chamber pacing routinely as suggested by recent guidelines and this policy can be achieved successfully in a district general hospital pacing centre.