Optimal pacing modes after cardiac transplantation: is synchronisation of recipient and donor atria beneficial?

Exercise limitation following transplantation

Organ transplantation is one of the medical miracles or the 20th century. It has the capacity to substantially improve exercise performance and quality of life in patients who are severely limited with chronic organ failure. We focus on the most commonly performed solid-organ transplants and describe peak exercise performance following recovery from transplantation. Across all of the common transplants, evaluated significant reduction in VO2peak is seen (typically renal and liver 65%-80% with heart and/or lung 50%-60% of predicted). Those with the lowest VO2peak pretransplant have the lowest VO2peak posttransplant. Overall very few patients have a VO2peak in the normal range. Investigation of the cause of the reduction of VO2peak has identified many factors pre- and posttransplant that may contribute. These include organ-specific factors in the otherwise well-functioning allograft (e.g., chronotropic incompetence in heart transplantation) as well as allograft dysfunction itself (e.g., chronic lung allograft dysfunction). However, looking across all transplants, a pattern emerges. A low muscle mass with qualitative change in large exercising skeletal muscle groups is seen pretransplant. Many factor posttransplant aggravate these changes or prevent them recovering, especially calcineurin antagonist drugs which are key immunosuppressing agents. This results in the reduction of VO2peak despite restoration of near normal function of the initially failing organ system. As such organ transplantation has provided an experiment of nature that has focused our attention on an important confounder of chronic organ failure-skeletal muscle dysfunction.

Atrial resynchronization following heart transplantation in childhood

Despite preserved left ventricular function, exercise capacity is often impaired after cardiac transplantation due to autonomic denervation of the donor's sinus node. We present our experience with atrio-atrial resynchronization in 2 pediatric heart transplant recipients. Both were highly active, suffered from chronotropic incompetence, and underwent successful atrial resynchronization with an objective improvement in exercise capacity, restoration of a physiologic chronotropic response, and resolution of dyspnea. Long-term stable recipient sinus node function may, therefore, be maintained in some cardiac transplant recipients with standard atrio-atrial anastomes. Atrio-atrial pacing may be feasible and effective years after transplantation.

Evolution of heart rate control after transplantation: conduction versus autonomic innervation

In cardiac transplantation, the donor organ is not initially innervated and demonstrates decreased heart rate variability (HRV). However, HRV may improve after several months. The mechanism for HRV improvement has not been elucidated; autonomic "reinnervation" of the donor heart has been proposed. The role of atrioatrial conduction from recipient to donor organ has not been evaluated. We prospectively evaluated cardiac transplant patients with a limited electrophysiology study at the time of their surveillance biopsies. Recordings were made of recipient and donor signals, observing conduction properties between recipient and donor atria. Holter recordings were analyzed and HRV was determined using spectral analysis techniques, recording mean RR interval, low-frequency power (LF), high-frequency power (HF), and the LF/HF ratio. These were compared to published norms. From November 1999 to May 2000, 21 patients (6 female) who underwent cardiac transplantation participated at a median age of 101 months (range, 4.1-217 months). Time posttransplant ranged from 26 days to 71 months. Holter data were available for 20 patients and demonstrated dissociated P waves in 13 (65%). The mean heart rate on Holter was 111 beats per minute (bpm) (range, 85-161 bpm). We were able to record distinct recipient atrial signals in 16 of 21 (76%) patients. The average recipient tissue heart rate was 55% that of the donor heart rate. We documented atrioatrial association in only 1 patient. HRV did not reach normal values for most patients and did not increase with time posttransplantation. The LF values were in the normal range for most patients, whereas 3 patients had normal HF values and 2 patients had values just below normal. Recipients of heart transplantation have a predominantly sympathetic influence of HRV. These preliminary data suggest that atrioatrial conduction does not play a role in reestablishing normal heart rate control following pediatric cardiac transplantation.

Optimal cardiac pacing after heart transplantation

The transplanted heart is characterized physiologically by autonomic denervation, chronotropic incompetence, intermittent episodes of allograft rejection, and frequently by diastolic dysfunction. Sinus node dysfunction resulting in bradycardia is common in the early postoperative period following standard orthotopic cardiac transplantation. Bradycardia tends to remit spontaneously but there are no factors that accurately identify patients who will need long-term pacing. Patients in whom bradycardia persists beyond the second postoperative week despite treatment with theophylline require permanent pacemaker implantation. It has been observed that chronotropic incompetence and diastolic dysfunction are important determinants of exercise capacity following heart transplantation. Pacing that restores chronotropic competence improves exercise capacity, confirming the importance of impaired heart rate response. As in other settings, pacing that preserves atrioventricular (AV) synchrony results in increased cardiac output. For these reasons when pacing is necessary we recommend the DDDR mode (AAIR if intact AV nodal conduction is present) so that the 30%-50% of patients who remain pacemaker-dependent long-term obtain maximal benefit from their transplant.

Exercise response of the recipient atrial remnant after orthotopic cardiac transplantation: implications for recipient atrial triggered pacing

The assumption that the recipient atrial remnant in the cardiac transplant recipient is normal has led to the suggestion that it is an appropriate trigger for permanent pacing in transplant recipients who need pacing or to restore chronotropic competence and/or mechanical synchrony of the composite atrium. We examined the chronotropic response to exercise in 12 orthotopic cardiac transplant recipients (mean age 49 years) at a mean time of 17 months posttransplantation. Recipient and donor atrial rates were noted and compared and chronotropic competence determined. Two of 12 recipient atrial remnants were in atrial fibrillation. Only six of the remaining 10 recipient atria exhibited chronotropic competence. Seven of 10 recipient atria had rates higher than that of the donor. Only four of ten recipient atria in sinus rhythm satisfied both criteria. Two of these had abnormally high atrial responses early into exercise. Of the remaining two, only one recipient atrial remnant demonstrated a > or = 20% increase in heart rate above that of the donor at peak exercise. Hence only 1 of 12 (8.3%) transplant recipients potentially could benefit from recipient atrial triggered pacing. While recipient atrial triggered pacing is an attractive theoretical concept for restoring chronotropic competence following orthotopic cardiac transplantation, it may rarely be practical because the recipient atrial remnant displays rhythm abnormalities, chronotropic incompetence, and abnormalities in its exercise response.

Electrical connection of native and transplanted sinus nodes via atrial to atrial pacing improves exercise performance after cardiac transplantation

Chronotropic incompetence limits exercise performance in cardiac transplant patients. Electrical linkage of the innervated native sinus node and the denervated donor atrium or direct donor atrium pacing improves exercise performance in patients early after transplant.

Permanent pacemaker implantation after cardiac transplantation: extra cost of a conservative policy

OBJECTIVE

To determine the costs of a change in permanent pacemaker implantation policy to later implantation (day 21+) after cardiac transplantation.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of patient records including duration of temporary pacing, timed of permanent pacemaker implantation, and length of hospital stay for every patient surviving > or = 14 days from November 1990 to August 1995 (period 2) and for all patients in whom permanent pacemakers were implanted between May 1985 and November 1990 (period 1).

SETTING

Supra-regional cardiopulmonary transplant unit.

PATIENTS

335 consecutive adult cardiac transplant recipients at Freeman Hospital between May 1985 and August 1995.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The cost of the policy change was calculated by subtraction of the overall saving in pacemaker implantations from the overall cost of the extra inpatient stay in period 2 due to delayed implantation.

RESULTS

Mean inpatient stay per patient following cardiac transplantation of permanent pacemaker recipients in period 1 was 13.8 days compared with 23.9 days in period 2 (P < 0.001). The cost of this extended hospital stay is 60,095 pounds. Had the implantation policy not been changed, a further seven patients would have received a permanent pacemaker in period 2. A saving in pacemaker hardware of 16,275 pounds was made. Overall, however, the new permanent pacemaker implantation policy increased expenditure by 43,820 pounds, assuming that permanent pacemaker implantation was the only reason for the extended hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The change in policy from early to later permanent pacemaker implantation has markedly increased expenditure.

A comparison of VVIR and DDDR pacing following cardiac transplantation

We compared the clinical course of patients paced in VVIR versus DDDR mode to determine the most appropriate method of pacing following cardiac transplantation. Pacemaker implantation was required in 9 of 90 orthotopic cardiac transplants (10%). Indications included sinus bradycardia or sinus arrest (8 patients) and AV node dysfunction (1 patient). VVIR pacemakers were implanted in four patients and DDDR in five patients. DDDR patients: The mean P wave was 1.7 mV and the mean atrial stimulation threshold was 0.8 V (at 0.5 msec). During follow-up of 20 months, two atrial lead complications developed (29% of leads in 33% of patients). No lead complications were directly related to endomyocardial biopsy. VVIR patients: All four patients developed VA conduction with mean VA time 180 msec (160-240 msec). Two patients developed pacemaker syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

VA conduction and pacemaker syndrome may develop in cardiac transplant recipients paced in the VVIR mode. Dual chamber pacing is technically feasible and preferable following cardiac transplantation.