Chronotropic Incompetence in Patients with an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: Prevalence and Predicting Factors

Rate-Responsive Cardiac Pacing: Technological Solutions and Their Applications

Modern cardiac pacemakers are equipped with a function that allows the heart rate to adapt to the current needs of the patient in situations of increased demand related to exercise and stress ("rate-response" function). This function may be based on a variety of mechanisms, such as a built-in accelerometer responding to increased chest movement or algorithms sensing metabolic demand for oxygen, analysis of intrathoracic impedance, and analysis of the heart rhythm (Q-T interval). The latest technologies in the field of rate-response functionality relate to the use of an accelerometer in leadless endocavitary pacemakers; in these devices, the accelerometer enables mapping of the mechanical wave of the heart's work cycle, enabling the pacemaker to correctly sense native impulses and stimulate the ventricles in synchrony with the cycles of atria and heart valves. Another modern system for synchronizing pacing rate with the patient's real-time needs requires a closed-loop system that continuously monitors changes in the dynamics of heart contractions. This article discusses the technical details of various solutions for detecting and responding to situations related to increased oxygen demand (e.g., exercise or stress) in implantable pacemakers, and reviews the results of clinical trials regarding the use of these algorithms.

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.

Association between endothelial function and chronotropic incompetence in subjects with chronic heart failure receiving optimal medical therapy

OBJECTIVE

Impairment of flow-mediated, endothelium-dependent vasodilatation (FMD) of the brachial artery identifies peripheral endothelial dysfunction in subjects with chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. To further elucidate the interaction of peripheral and central mechanisms in the syndrome of CHF, we examined the association between endothelial function and chronotropic incompetence, an emerging prognostic marker in CHF.

METHODS

Thirty subjects with stable New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-III CHF were studied. A vascular ultrasound study was performed to measure brachial artery FMD. The percentage of age-adjusted maximal predicted heart rate (MPHR) reached during cardiopulmonary exercise tolerance testing (CPETT) was used to assess the degree of chronotropic competence. All patients received ACE inhibitors and beta-adrenoceptor blockers.

RESULTS

Brachial artery FMD averaged 1.3 +/- 2.4% and age-adjusted % MPHR 74.1 +/- 11.7%. FMD correlated with % MPHR among all patients (r = 0.60, P = 0.01). FMD and resting heart rate (RHR) did not significantly correlate (r = 0.13, P = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

FMD, a measure of peripheral endothelial dysfunction, and % MPHR, a central determinant of cardiac output, are moderately correlated in heart failure patients receiving optimal medical therapy. Whether a cause-effect relationship underlies this association remains to be investigated.

[Sandwiched between the single- and triple-chamber ICD: do we still need the dual-chamber ICD?]

Since it has been shown that adverse events are more frequent with dual-compared to single-chamber ICDs in patients with heart failure, and since the importance of prevention of unnecessary right ventricular pacing and the success of biventricular pacing have been demonstrated in numerous studies, the need for dual-chamber ICD systems has to be reassessed. The development of these systems was accompanied by expectations of improved hemodynamics in patients with bradycardia, a reduced incidence of atrial fibrillation, inappropriate therapies, and bradycardia-associated ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Single-chamber ICDs should be used restrictively and with great caution in patients with (sinus-) bradycardia and heart failure, since a relevant proportion of these patients is at risk of hemodynamic deterioration. Even if the proportion of patients with proven pacemaker syndrome is so small that it does not reach the level of statistical significance in large studies, a small percentage of patients with hemodynamic deterioration due to VVI pacing is still clinically (and economically) intolerable. Since the development of bradycardia or symptomatic chronotropic incompetence (e.g., due to amiodarone) is difficult to predict, it seems reasonable to use the indication for dualchamber systems liberally. However, the systematic prevention of unnecessary right ventricular pacing is crucial if dual-chamber ICDs are used. If advanced tachycardia discrimination algorithms and careful, individual programming are used, dual-chamber ICDs are superior in the prevention of inappropriate therapies. Additionally, dualchannel electrograms allow a more reliable interpretation of stored tachycardia episodes. In summary, dual-chamber systems represent a valuable improvement of ICD therapy but require thorough programming to convey their advantage.

Is dual-chamber programming inferior to single-chamber programming in an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator? Results of the INTRINSIC RV (Inhibition of Unnecessary RV Pacing With AVSH in ICDs) study

BACKGROUND

The INTRINSIC RV (Inhibition of Unnecessary RV Pacing with AVSH in ICDs) study tested the hypothesis that dual-chamber rate-responsive (DDDR) with atrioventricular search hysteresis (AVSH) 60-130 programming is not inferior to single-chamber (VVI)-40 programming in an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with respect to all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations using an equivalence margin of 5%.

METHODS AND RESULTS

At 108 centers, 1530 patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator indication received a VITALITY AVT (Guidant Corporation, St. Paul, Minn) implantable cardioverter defibrillator programmed consistently to DDDR AVSH 60-130 for the first week. Of those, 988 patients with <20% right ventricular pacing at 1 week were randomized to DDDR AVSH 60-130 or to VVI-40 programming. Among those randomized, 502 were assigned to DDDR AVSH and 486 to VVI. Groups were similar with regard to coronary disease (68%), gender (21% female), and New York Heart Association functional class >I (79%). A total of 32 patients (6.4%) in the DDDR AVSH arm and 46 patients (9.5%) in the VVI arm died or were hospitalized for heart failure during a mean follow-up of 10.4 months (relative risk=0.67, P=0.072 in favor of DDDR AVSH). DDDR AVSH was not inferior to VVI programming (P<0.001). All-cause mortality was not significantly different between the DDDR AVSH arm (3.6%) and the VVI arm (5.1%; P=0.23). The mean percent right ventricular pacing in the DDDR AVSH arm was 10% (median 4%) versus 3% (median 0%) in the VVI arm.

CONCLUSIONS

In the INTRINSIC RV trial, among those randomized, DDDR AVSH was associated with similar outcomes as with VVI backup pacing.