A prospective multicenter study demonstrating clinical benefit with a new accelerometer-based DDDR pacemaker. Dromos Dr Investigators Group

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.

Effect of rate-adaptive pacing on performance and physiological parameters during activities of daily living in the elderly: results from the CLEAR (Cylos Responds with Physiologic Rate Changes during Daily Activities) study

Aims

For most elderly pacemaker patients, evaluation of rate-adaptive pacing using treadmill and bicycle tests is impractical and not representative of typical daily activities. This study was designed to compare the performance and physiological response of the closed-loop stimulation (CLS) rate-adaptive sensor to accelerometer (XL) and no rate sensor (DDD) during typical daily activity testing.

Methods and results

Subjects recently implanted with a Cylos pacemaker completed timed activities of daily life testing, which included walking, sweeping, and standing from a seated position. Activity performance and physiological response from each sensor mode was evaluated for subjects requiring ≥80% pacing. Overall, 74 subjects needed ≥80% pacing during at least one test. An increase in the area swept (CLS vs. XL, 1.67 m² difference, P = 0.009; CLS vs. DDD, 1.59 m² difference, P = 0.025) and a decrease in the prevalence of orthostatic hypotension (OH) after standing 1 min (CLS vs. XL, odds ratio = 0.16, P = 0.006; CLS vs. DDD, odds ratio = 0.18, P = 0.012) was observed in the CLS mode as compared with XL and DDD. No statistical difference in walk distance was observed between CLS and XL or CLS and DDD.

Conclusion

In acute testing, as compared with XL and DDD, CLS provides a more physiological response during the performance of activities of daily living for subjects with ≥80% pacing. This is clinically reflected in better performance during the sweep test as well as a decrease in the prevalence of OH in our elderly population.

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00355797

Design and rationale of the assessment of proper physiologic response with rate adaptive pacing driven by minute ventilation or accelerometer (APPROPRIATE) trial

Rate-adaptive sensors are designed to restore a physiologic heart rate response to activity, in particular for patients that have chronotropic incompetence (CI). Limited data exist comparing two primary types of sensors; an accelerometer (XL) sensor which detects activity or motion and a minute ventilation (MV) sensor, which detects the product of respiration rate and tidal volume. The APPROPRIATE study will evaluate the MV sensor compared with the XL sensor for superiority in improving functional capacity (peak VO(2)) in pacemaker patients that have CI. This study is a double-blind, randomized, two-arm trial that will enroll approximately 1,000 pacemaker patients. Patients will complete a 6-min walk test at the 2-week visit to screen for potential CI. Those projected to have CI will advance to a 1-month visit. At the 1-month visit, final determination of CI will be done by completing a peak exercise treadmill test while the pacemaker is programmed to DDDR with the device sensors set to passive. Patients failing to meet the study criteria for CI will not continue further in the trial. Patients that demonstrate CI will be randomized to program their rate-adaptive sensors to either MV or XL in a 1:1 ratio. The rate-adaptive sensor will be optimized for each patient using a short walk to determine the appropriate response factor. At a 2-month visit, patients will complete a CPX test with the rate-adaptive sensors in their randomized setting.

Impact of rate-modulated pacing on quality of life and exercise capacity—Evidence from the Advanced Elements of Pacing Randomized Controlled Trial (ADEPT)

BACKGROUND

Ninety-nine percent of pacemakers implanted in the United States include an option for rate modulation.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether dual-chamber rate-modulated pacing, when compared with dual-chamber pacing alone, improved quality of life.

METHODS

This was a single-blind randomized controlled trial comparing dual-chamber with rate-modulated dual-chamber pacing. Patients were enrolled between January 12, 2000, and January 10, 2002, with 1-year follow-up ending December 19, 2002. The study was a U.S. multicenter trial, with 95 sites participating. All patients received a rate modulation-capable dual-chamber pacemaker for standard indications. Patients were screened with an exercise test (Chronotropic Assessment Exercise Protocol) 1 month later. One thousand two hundred seventy-three patients were enrolled; 401 proved ineligible, and 872 (68%) made up the randomized patient cohort. Randomized patients had a mean age of 71 years, 64% were men, and 64% had sinus node dysfunction. Randomization was in a factorial design to (1) dual-chamber rate-modulated pacing versus dual-chamber pacing and (2) automatic mode switching versus no automatic mode switching. The present report is limited to the comparison of rate modulation with no rate modulation (DDDR vs. DDD). The primary endpoint was the score on the Specific Activity Scale, an activity-based cardiovascular disease-specific instrument at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included 6-month treadmill time and additional cardiovascular disease-specific, and generic health-related quality-of-life instruments at 1 year.

RESULTS

At 6 months, patients with rate modulation had a higher peak exercise heart rate (rate modulation 113.3 +/- 19.6, no rate modulation 101.1 +/- 21.1; P <.0001). Total exercise time was not different between groups. At 1 year, there were no significant differences between groups with respect to Specific Activity Scale or the secondary quality-of-life endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that rate modulation is ineffective in improving the functional status or quality of life of patients with a bradycardia indication for dual-chamber pacing.

Have the results of randomized clinical trials of pacing altered the practice of cardiac pacing?

Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for the evaluation of new therapies. However, in the early years of pacing, the observational benefits were so great and the lifesaving benefits to patients so readily obvious that randomized trials were not necessary to prove benefit. As the technology has matured, advances have become more evolutionary than revolutionary, and observational analyses are unable to provide convincing evidence of small-to-moderate benefits. Thus, randomized trials of sufficient sample size are necessary to reliably assess the small-to-moderate effects of advances such as dual-chamber pacing, rate modulation, and mode switching. It is only during the last decade, however, that the evidence base for pacing with regard to randomized trials has begun to emerge. It is unclear whether the emerging results of these clinical trials have affected the clinical practice of pacing.

Cardiac pacing. A review

Pacing is a field of rapid clinical progress and technologic advances. Clinical progress in the 1990s included the refinement of indications for pacing as well as the use of pacemakers for new, nonbradycardiac indications, such as the treatment of cardiomyopathies and CHF and the prevention of atrial fibrillation. Important published data and studies in progress are shedding new light on issues of pacing mode selection, and they may influence future practice significantly. Important technologic advances include development of new rate-adaptive sensors and sensor combinations and the evolution of pacemakers into sophisticated diagnostic devices with the capability to store data and ECGs. Automatic algorithms monitor the patient for appropriate capture, sensing, battery status, and lead impedance, providing better patient safety and pacemaker longevity.