Atrial adaptive rate pacing in sick sinus syndrome: effects on exercise capacity and arrhythmias

A blended sensor restores chronotropic response more favorably than an accelerometer alone in pacemaker patients: the LIFE study results

BACKGROUND

Adaptive rate sensors used in permanent pacemakers incorporate an accelerometer (XL) to increase heart rate with activity. Limited data exists regarding the relative benefit of a blended sensor (BS) (XL and minute ventilation) versus XL alone in restoring chronotropic response (CR) in chronotropically incompetent (CI) patients.

METHODS

One thousand five hundred thirty-eight patients from the limiting chronotropic incompetence for pacemaker recipients (LIFE) study were implanted with a pacemaker and 1,256 patients had data collected at 1 month. Patients performed a treadmill test 1-month postimplant while programmed in nonrate responsive mode (DDD-60) to determine CI. Only patients who completed at least three exercise stages and achieved a peak perceived exertion >or=16 were included in the analyses. The metabolic chronotropic relationship (MCR) slope was used to evaluate CR in 547 patients. Patients were randomized to XL or BS with a conservative fixed rate response factor (XL = 8, MV = 4). CI patients performed a follow-up 6-month treadmill test.

RESULTS

CI prevalence in this patient population (n = 547) was 34%. No differences in baseline characteristics existed between groups. Although both groups showed significant within-group improvements in MCR slope from 1 to 6 months (both P < 0.001), the BS group had a significantly higher MCR slope at 6 months compared to the XL group (P = 0.011). Improvement in quality of life (QOL) did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this general pacemaker population with CI, a BS programmed empirically restores CR more favorably than an XL sensor programmed nominally. Further studies are needed to determine if individual sensor optimization would lead to improvement in functional capacity, higher MCR slopes, and QOL.

Predictors of chronotropic incompetence in the pacemaker patient population

AIMS

We prospectively evaluated results from cardiopulmonary exercise testing for chronotropic incompetence (CI) in a cohort of 292 pacemaker patients. In addition, we evaluated comorbidity and antiarrhythmic patient data as indicators of CI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

On the basis of exercise stress testing and application of the definition of CI by Wilkoff, 51% of our cohort was categorized as having CI. Indications for pacemaker implant for this patient group were 42% atrioventricular block, 56% sinus node disease, and 59% atrial fibrillation. Maximum oxygen uptake (VO(2) max) and exercise duration were significantly reduced among CI pacemaker patients, whereas oxygen uptake at the anaerobic threshold remained unchanged. The following clinical characteristics were significant predictors of CI: existence of coronary artery disease (P = 0.038), presence of an acquired valvular heart disease (P = 0.037), and former cardiac surgery (P = 0.041). Age, gender, arterial hypertension, cardiomyopathy, congenital heart disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, and time period between stress-exercise examination and pacemaker implantation were not significant predictors of CI. Chronic antiarrhythmic therapy with digitalis (P = 0.013), beta blockers (P = 0.036), and amiodarone (P = 0.045) were significant predictors of CI. In contrast, medication with class I and IV antiarrhythmics had no significant correlation with CI.

CONCLUSION

We found the following characteristics predictive of CI in this pacemaker patient population: VO(2) max, existence of coronary artery disease or acquired valvular heart disease, previous cardiac surgery, as well as medication with digitalis, beta blockers, and amiodarone.

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

Chronotropic incompetence (CI), which has not been systematically examined in the ICD patient population, may have implications for device programming. A total of 123 ICD patients were classified into three groups: single-chamber ICD with sinus rhythm, dual-chamber ICD with sinus rhythm, and single-chamber ICD with permanent atrial fibrillation. Heart rate response, maximum oxygen uptake, and oxygen uptake at the anaerobic threshold were measured during treadmill exercise testing. In addition, clinical variables such as antiarrhythmic drug therapy, underlying heart disease, and left-ventricular (LV) ejection fraction were recorded. Of the patients studied, 38% were chronotropically incompetent (47/123). Significant predictors of CI were as follows: presence of a coronary disease (P = 0.036), prior cardiac surgery (P = 0.037), chronic drug therapy with beta-blockers (P = 0.032), administration of amiodarone (P = 0.025), and a combination of these two forms of treatment (P = 0.01). Spiroergometry revealed reduced exercise capacity (P = 0.041) and lessened VO2max (P = 0.034) among chronotropically incompetent patients. A large percentage of ICD patients demonstrates CI with subsequently reduced physical stress tolerance. In light of the DAVID study, we believe that a closer examination of rate-adaptive modes for ICD patients is warranted under enhanced conditions: (1) optimized AV interval programming; (2) utilization of new algorithms to reduce ventricular pacing in combination with rate-adaptive atrial pacing, with the goal of addressing CI while minimizing ventricular pacing; and (3) an optimized upper heart-rate limit.

Chronotropic Incompetence in a Young Adult

Chronotropic incompetence (CI) is the inability of heart rate response to meet metabolic demand. CI is associated with sinus node dysfunction, atrial fibrillation, or structural heart disease, and can lead to functional impairment. We report the case of a 34-year-old man with CI secondary to sinus node dysfunction who demonstrated significant improvement in functional capacity with rate-responsive pacing. Therapy for CI should be guided by the treatment of the underlying cause with consideration for rate-responsive pacing in symptomatic patients. The prognosis of CI is variable and dependent on underlying etiology.

Incidence and significance of chronotropic incompetence in patients with indications for primary pacemaker implantation or pacemaker replacement

This prospective study was undertaken to evaluate the incidence and significance of chronotropic incompetence in 211 patients [age 71.1 6 10.6 years (mean 6 SD)] by means of maximum exercise test in order to determine the indication for rate-responsive pacing before primary pacemaker implantation (147 patients) or pacemaker replacement (64 patients). There were 112 (53%) patients with second- or third-degree AV block, 63 (30%) with sick sinus syndrome, and 36 (17%) with chronic atrial fibrillation. Chronotropic incompetence was defined as maximum heart rate lower than age-adjusted norm calculated by the formula: 0.7x(220 - age) and its significance as the difference between the two rates. The overall incidence of chronotropic incompetence was 42%. The incidence was significantly higher in patients with atrial fibrillation (67%, P<0.0005) and sick sinus syndrome (49%, P<0.012) than in those with AV block (30%). The mean difference between maximum heart rate and the age-adjusted norm was 18% (range 2%-63%). The mean difference was significantly higher in patients with atrial fibrillation (27%, range 8-63%) than in those with sick sinus syndrome (19%, range 2%-45%, P<0.01), or with AV block (12%, range 6%-26%, P<0.000001). The rate-responsive pacemakers were implanted in 44% of 211 patients studied and in 43% of 196 patients excluded from the study due to the apparent (contra)indication of rate-responsive pacing (NS). Thus, chronotropic incompetence seems to be common in the pacemaker patient population. The highest incidence and significance was found in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation. Systematic evaluation of chronotropic competence can double the rate of implantation of rate-responsive pacemakers; however, further studies are needed to clarify relation between the significance of chronotropic incompetence and functional benefit of rate-responsive pacing.

[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.

Chronotropic incompetence--Part II: Clinical implications

The definition of chronotropic incompetence as inadequate chronotropic response to metabolic demand is, in theory, quite satisfactory. However, the method used in clinical practice for determination of chronotropic incompetence is far from established. The determination of chronotropic incompetence has important diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic implications although the exact mechanism underlying chronotropic incompetence is at present unclear. From a pacing viewpoint, chronotropic incompetence is clinically relevant only when there is a functional improvement associated with rate-responsive pacing. Rate-responsive pacing has improved the physiologic approach to artificial pacing.

AAI pacing mode: when is it indicated and how should it be achieved?

AAI pacing offers better hemodynamic characteristics than dual-chamber pacing and is the optimal mode for patients with sick sinus syndrome without AV conduction disorders. AAI pacing may be achieved by single-chamber atrial pacing, by programming a dual-chamber pacemaker to the AAI mode, or by programming a dual-chamber pacemaker to DDD mode with a long AV delay. The annual incidence of AV block development in patients with sick sinus syndrome is low, probably 1-5%, but there is no method of detecting patients immune or prone to future development of AV block. Chronotropic incompetence is often present in patients with sick sinus syndrome but the value of additional rate response is not yet firmly established. Our recommendations for the choice of the optimal method of pacing are discussed.