The United Kingdom pacing and cardiovascular events (UKPACE) trial. United Kingdom Pacing and Cardiovascular Events

Five historical innovations that have shaped modern cardiothoracic surgery

Throughout history, many innovations have contributed to the development of modern cardiothoracic surgery, improving patient outcomes and expanding the range of treatment options available to patients. This article explores five key historical innovations that have shaped modern cardiothoracic surgery: cardiopulmonary bypass, surgical pacemakers, video assisted thoracic surgery, robotic surgery and mechanical circulatory support. We will review the development, impact and significance of each innovation, highlighting their contributions to the field of cardiothoracic surgery and their ongoing relevance in contemporary and perioperative practice.

Indications for permanent pacing in dogs and cats

Pacemaker implantation is considered as a standard procedure for treatment of symptomatic bradycardia in both dogs and cats. Advanced second-degree and third-degree atrioventricular blocks, sick sinus syndrome, persistent atrial standstill, and vasovagal syncope are the most common rhythm disturbances that require pacing to either alleviate clinical signs or prolong survival. Most pacemakers are implanted transvenously, using endocardial leads, but rarely epicardial leads may be necessary. To decide whether a patient is a candidate for pacing, as well as which pacing modality should be used, the clinician must have a clear understanding of the etiology, the pathophysiology, and the natural history of the most common bradyarrhythmias, as well as what result can be achieved by pacing patients with different rhythm disturbances. The goal of this review was, therefore, to describe the indications for pacing by evaluating the available evidence in both human and veterinary medicine. We described the etiology of bradyarrhythmias, clinical signs and electrocardiographic abnormalities, and the choice of pacing modality, taking into account how different choices may have different physiological consequences to selected patients. It is expected that this review will assist veterinarians in recognizing arrhythmias that may require permanent pacing and the risk-benefit of each pacing modality and its impact on outcome.

Renin-angiotensin system blockers are associated with reduced mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients paced for complete atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

Right ventricular apical pacing can cause dyssynchronous activation of the ventricles, increase sympathetic activation, cause abnormalities in myocardial perfusion, worsen cardiac output and endothelial function, and may be associated with adverse cardiovascular effects. The use of rennin-angiotensin system blockers (RASBs) may be beneficial in counteracting these potentially harmful effects of right ventricular pacing.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the impact of RASB use on the outcome in patients with right ventricular pacemakers implanted for complete atrioventricular (AV) block.

METHODS

Patients implanted with right ventricular pacemakers for complete AV block between 1994 and 2009 were identified from the Tayside Pacing Registry. Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess differences in all-cause mortality and congestive heart failure hospitalizations for those receiving RASB during follow-up, adjusted for confounding variables. We also performed 2 sensitivity analyses--a propensity score-matched analysis and time-dependent analyses--to minimize bias.

RESULTS

Eight hundred twenty patients (57% men; median age 73 years; range 22-103 years) received pacemakers for complete AV block between 1994 and 2008 (54% dual-chamber pacemaker and 46% ventricular demand pacemaker). Two hundred seventy-eight (34%) patients had received RASBs. Mean follow-up was 4.9 ± 4.6 years, with 540 (65%) deaths. RASB use was independently associated with significantly reduced mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.94; P = .017) and reduced heart failure hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio 0.42; 95% confidence interval 0.17-0.92; P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that RASBs may confer outcome benefits in patients with right ventricular pacemakers implanted for complete AV block.

First human demonstration of cardiac stimulation with transcutaneous ultrasound energy delivery: implications for wireless pacing with implantable devices

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a novel technology that uses energy transfer from an ultrasound transmitter to achieve cardiac stimulation without the use of a pacing lead in humans.

BACKGROUND

To overcome the limitations of pacemaker leads, a new technology enabling stimulation without the use of a lead is desirable.

METHODS

A steerable bipolar electrophysiology catheter incorporating a receiver electrode into the tip and circuitry to convert ultrasound energy to electrical energy was inserted transvenously into the heart. An ultrasound transmitting transducer was placed on the chest wall with ultrasound gel. Ultrasound energy was amplitude-adjusted and transmitted at 313 to 385 kHz. The output waveform of the receiver electrode was monitored while the transmitter was moved on the chest wall to target the receiver. The ultrasound transmission amplitude was limited to a mechanical index of 1.9, the maximum allowed for ultrasound imaging systems. Ultrasound-mediated pacing with minimum voltage but consistent capture was obtained for 12 s.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients (48 +/- 12 years) were tested during or after completion of clinical electrophysiology procedures. A total of 80 pacing sites were tested (mean 3.3 sites/patient): 12 right atrial, 35 right ventricular, and 33 left ventricular (31 endocardial) sites. The transmit-to-receive distance was 11.3 +/- 3.2 cm (range 5.3 to 22.5 cm). Ultrasound-mediated pacing was achieved at all 80 test sites, with consistent capture at 77 sites. The mechanical index during pacing was 0.5 +/- 0.3 (range 0.1 to 1.5). The mean ultrasound-mediated capture threshold was 1.01 +/- 0.64 V. There was no adverse event related to ultrasound pacing. No patient experienced discomfort during pacing.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility and safety of pacing usng ultrasound energy has been shown acutely.

Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators

An increasing number of patients are now treated cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators and the technology of these is constantly changing. It is vital to have a good understanding of how they function and what the real risks are. Understanding how the device should work when functioning normally, and the possible effects of electromagnetic interference, is paramount to their safe management in the peri-operative period. Knowing when a device should be disabled or reprogrammed requires careful consideration. Information from the patient's pacemaker clinic should be sought whenever possible and can be invaluable. In addition, the Medicines Healthcare products Regulatory Agency have published the first set of UK guidelines on the management of implantable devices in the presence of surgical diathermy and this will undoubtedly provide a firm foundation on which anaesthetists can base much of their practice.

Single-chamber versus dual-chamber pacing for high-grade atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

In the treatment of atrioventricular block, dual-chamber cardiac pacing is thought to confer a clinical benefit as compared with single-chamber ventricular pacing, but the supporting evidence is mainly from retrospective studies. Uncertainty persists regarding the true benefits of dual-chamber pacing, particularly in the elderly, in whom it is used less often than in younger patients.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group trial, 2021 patients 70 years of age or older who were undergoing their first pacemaker implant for high-grade atrioventricular block were randomly assigned to receive a single-chamber ventricular pacemaker (1009 patients) or a dual-chamber pacemaker (1012 patients). In the single-chamber group, patients were randomly assigned to receive either fixed-rate pacing (504 patients) or rate-adaptive pacing (505 patients). The primary outcome was death from all causes. Secondary outcomes included atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or other thromboembolism.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 4.6 years for mortality and 3 years for other cardiovascular events. The mean annual mortality rate was 7.2 percent in the single-chamber group and 7.4 percent in the dual-chamber group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.11). We found no significant differences between the group with single-chamber pacing and that with dual-chamber pacing in the rates of atrial fibrillation, heart failure, or a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or other thromboembolism.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients with high-grade atrioventricular block, the pacing mode does not influence the rate of death from all causes during the first five years or the incidence of cardiovascular events during the first three years after implantation of a pacemaker.

Cardiac pacing for bradycardia support: Evidence-based approach to pacemaker selection and programming

The vast majority of pacemakers implanted in the United States for the treatment of symptomatic bradycardia are dual-chamber systems with a complex array of functions, such as rate responsiveness, dynamic atrioventricular delay, and automatic mode switching. Basic hemodynamic studies have convincingly demonstrated the superiority of maintaining atrioventricular synchrony. However, clinical trials have failed to demonstrate the impressive results expected based on physiologic data. The most recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that dual-chamber devices, when compared with single-chamber ventricular pacing, do not prevent mortality or stroke, and lead to an unexpectedly small reduction in heart failure hospitalizations. Although improvements in quality of life have not been consistently found when comparing ventricular-based versus atrial-based pacing, a reduction in the incidence of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in dual chamber-paced patients has been reported by most trials. Dual-chamber pacing has been reported to reduce pacemaker syndrome in US trials. The addition of rate modulation, in spite of attempting to replicate the normal response to exercise, has not shown a consistently positive impact on quality of life or treadmill time. The use of pacemakers for the treatment of vasovagal syncope is controversial. Adding dual-chamber sensing ability to current implanted defibrillators considerably reduces the number of inappropriate shocks but may increase mortality if not programmed to minimize ventricular stimulation.

Canadian Trial of Physiological Pacing

Background— The Canadian Trial of Physiological Pacing (CTOPP) reported that the risk of stroke or cardiovascular death was similar between patients receiving ventricular versus physiological pacemakers at the end of the original follow-up period of 3 years. However, the occurrence of atrial fibrillation was significantly less frequent with physiological pacemakers. To assess a potential delayed benefit of physiological pacing, follow-up of patients in this study was extended to 6 years.

Methods and Results— A total of 1474 patients requiring a pacemaker for symptomatic bradycardia were randomized to receive ventricular and 1094 to physiological pacemakers. The primary outcome was stroke or cardiovascular death. The study was completed in July 1998, and follow-up was extended to July 2001. At a mean follow-up of 6.4 years, there was no difference between treatment groups in the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or stroke. There was no significant difference in total mortality or stroke between groups. There was a significantly lower rate of development of atrial fibrillation in the physiological group, with a relative risk reduction of 20.1% (CI, 5.4 to 32.5; P =0.009).

Conclusions— The CTOPP extended study does not show a difference in cardiovascular death or stroke, or in total mortality, or in stroke between patients implanted with ventricular or physiological pacemakers over a mean follow-up of >6 years. However, there is a persistent significant reduction in the development of atrial fibrillation with physiological pacing.

Dual chamber versus single chamber ventricular pacemakers for sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

Dual chamber pacing or single chamber atrial pacing ('physiologic' pacing) is believed to have an advantage over single chamber ventricular pacing in that it resembles cardiac physiology more closely by maintaining atrioventricular (AV) synchrony and dominance of the sinus node, which in turn may reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality thus contributing to patient survival and quality of life. However, a significant proportion of pacemakers currently implanted are single chamber ventricular pacemakers.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the short- and long-term clinical effectiveness of dual chamber pacemakers compared to single chamber ventricular pacemakers in adults with AV block, sick sinus syndrome or both. An additional objective was to assess separately any potential differences in effectiveness between dual chamber pacing and single chamber atrial pacing. The clinical effectiveness of single chamber atrial pacing versus single chamber ventricular pacing was not examined.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to 2002), EMBASE (1980 to 2002) and the Science Citation Index (1980 to 2002) were searched on 19th August 2002. Citation lists and web sites were checked and researchers in the field contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel group or crossover randomised controlled trials of at least 48 hours duration comparing dual chamber pacing and single chamber ventricular pacing, and investigating cardiovascular morbidity, mortality, patient related quality of life, exercise capacity and complication rates.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted onto pre-piloted data extraction forms. Quality assessment was undertaken using a checklist, with a sub-sample of quality data independently extracted by a second reviewer. Where appropriate data was available, meta-analysis was performed. Where meta-analysis was not possible, the number of studies showing a positive, neutral or negative direction of effect and statistical significance were simply counted.

MAIN RESULTS

Five parallel and 26 crossover randomised controlled trials were identified. The quality of reporting was found to be poor. Pooled data from parallel studies shows a statistically non-significant preference for physiologic pacing (primarily dual chamber pacing) for the prevention of stroke, heart failure and mortality, and a statistically significant beneficial effect regarding the prevention of atrial fibrillation (odds ratio (OR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93). Both parallel and crossover studies favour dual chamber pacing with regard to pacemaker syndrome (parallel: Peto OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.14; crossover: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, 95% CI - 0.95 to -0.52). Pooled data from crossover studies shows a statistically significant trend towards dual chamber pacing being more favourable in terms of exercise capacity (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.45). No individual studies reported a significantly more favourable outcome with single chamber ventricular pacing.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows a trend towards greater effectiveness with dual chamber pacing compared to single chamber ventricular pacing, which supports the current British Pacing and Electrophysiology Group's Guidelines regarding atrioventricular block. Additional randomised controlled trial evidence from ongoing trials in this area will further inform the debate.

Translation of clinical trials into clinical practice: use of results in formulating guidelines

The "evidence base" for arrhythmology is enormous and highly variable in quality and relevance. Every day, more information becomes available from basic science, bedside research, randomized trials, structured registries, and clinical experience. It has become critically important to develop methods for collating and synthesizing all of these strands of evidence into a useful and applicable format. The guideline is an increasingly valuable tool for this purpose. Guidelines are constructed in a formal and approved manner such that the evidence is graded and combined to produce appropriately classified practical recommendations. Arrhythmology guidelines now must be funded, implemented, value tested, and regularly revised.

Pacemaker mode selection: the evidence from randomized trials

The evidence base for pacing, specifically with regards to outcome-based randomized trials, is only beginning to emerge. At present, the guidelines for pacing in sinus node dysfunction (SND), atrioventricular block (AVB), and vasovagal syncope are largely based on observational, not randomized studies. The findings from observational studies that physiological pacing was associated with reduced mortality, fewer strokes, less heart failure, and less AF when compared with ventricular pacing, were not uniformly supported by the early randomized trials of a relatively small sample size. Thus, it has become increasingly clear that large scale randomized trials are necessary to measure reliably the benefit, if any, of progressively more expensive and complex pacemakers. To provide reliable answers to these important questions, three large multicenter randomized trials in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States have been designed and conducted. The present review analyzed the results of completed randomized trials on pacemaker mode selection. To date, > 6,000 patients requiring permanent pacing to prevent bradycardia have been randomized; among these, dual chamber pacing did not prevent stroke or improve survival when compared with ventricular pacing. However, dual chamber pacing led to a moderate reduction of incident and chronic AF, reduced symptoms of heart failure in patients with SND, prevented pacemaker syndrome, and modestly improved quality-of-life. Further, a 5-10% reduction in mortality by atrial-based pacing cannot be excluded based on the results of the analyzed trials. The availability of data from ongoing randomized trials and their meta analysis should complete the totality of evidence during the next several years.

Pacing interventions for falls and syncope in the elderly

There is a high prevalence of cardiovascular disorders among elderly patients with recurrent falls or syncope, and cardiovascular causes are implicated in a significant proportion of three cases. Common cardiovascular causes of falls and syncope include carotid sinus syndrome, vasovagal episodes, sick sinus syndrome, and atrioventricular block. A comprehensive history and physical examination supplemented by electrocardiographic monitoring, carotid sinus massage, and tilt-table testing in appropriately selected patients form the basis of the diagnostic evaluation to exclude a significant cardiovascular disorder. Patients with documented symptomatic bradycardia often benefit from pacemaker implantation, as evidenced by a reduction in recurrent events and improved quality of life. Although dual-chamber pacemakers, particularly those with rate responsiveness, provide more physiologic pacing than single-chamber ventricular devices, the superiority of dual-chamber pacemakers in reducing major clinical events has not been demonstrated. The efficacy of an aggressive evaluation and patient-management strategy that includes pacemaker implantation for elderly patients with recurrent falls has been validated only by one prospective clinical trial; however, available data are compelling. For a variety of cardiovascular conditions, permanent pacemaker implantation has a demonstrated efficacy to prevent symptoms that arise from transient hypotension and decreased cerebral perfusion. The implication of these data is that many falls may be preventable through permanent pacemaker implantation in appropriately selected patients.

Atrioventricular block and problems with atrioventricular conduction

This chapter has summarized briefly the current state of our knowledge on the incidence, etiology, presentation, investigation, and management of patients with AV block. The scope of the material covered has been widened intentionally to include a plethora of AV-conduction abnormalities because of the increases in the understanding of their clinical importance and contribution to left ventricular dysfunction. Under this heading, the critical importance of heart rate, maintenance of AV synchrony, and the sequence of ventricular activation and relaxation have been introduced and summarized briefly. The authors make a strong plea that, in the future, the reader consider AV-conduction abnormalities to be the parent topic, with the more-traditional, narrower subject of AV block forming a subunit thereof.

Prospective randomized trials on pacing mode: what have we learned?

Retrospective studies and observational clinical data on pacemaker mode selection indicate that physiologic pacing is associated with better clinical outcomes and reduced mortality when compared with single-chamber ventricular pacing. Methodologic flaws in such studies, especially in respect of selection bias, have cast doubt upon the validity of the results and have mandated the performance of randomized, prospective studies of pacemaker-mode prescription. Evidence available to date suggests that atrial-based pacing may confer improved quality of life and a reduction in the incidence of chronic atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic events in sinus node disease. Physiologic pacing modes have, to date, not demonstrated benefit with congestive heart failure or patient longevity. The results of ongoing, large prospective trials of mode prescription in patients with AV block and sinus node disease are needed before any change from current guidelines can be recommended.

Clinical characteristics of patients intolerant to VVIR pacing

The incidence and clinical predictors of the development of intolerance to VVIR pacing have not been extensively studied in prospective long-term randomized trials comparing different pacing modes. The frequency and clinical factors predicting intolerance to ventricular pacing are controversial. The Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly (PASE) Trial enrolled 407 patients aged >/=65 years in a 30-month, single-blind, randomized, controlled comparison of quality of life and clinical outcomes with ventricular pacing and dual-chamber pacing in patients undergoing dual-chamber pacemaker implantation for standard clinically accepted indications. We reviewed the clinical, hemodynamic, and electrophysiologic variables at the time of pacemaker implantation in 204 patients enrolled in the PASE trial and randomized to the VVIR mode, some of whom subsequently required crossover (reprogramming) to DDDR pacing. During a median follow-up of 555 days, 53 patients (26%) crossed over from VVIR to DDDR pacing. A decrease in systolic blood pressure during ventricular pacing at the time of pacemaker implantation (p = 0.001), use of beta blockers at the time of randomization (p = 0.01), and nonischemic cardiomyopathy (p = 0.04) were the only variables that predicted crossover in the Cox multivariate regression model. After reprogramming to the dual-chamber mode, patients showed improvement in all aspects of quality of life, with significant improvements in physical and emotional role. The high incidence of crossover from VVIR to DDDR pacing along with significant improvements in quality of life after crossover to DDDR pacing strongly favors dual-chamber pacing compared with single-chamber ventricular pacing in elderly patients requiring permanent pacing.

Clinical trials of pacing mode selection

Current recommendations in favor of dual-chamber over single-chamber ventricular pacing for patients with sinus node dysfunction or AV conduction disorders were made largely based on observational data and expert opinions. The first randomized pacing mode selection study was relatively small and suggested survival advantage with physiologic pacing only after an extended follow-up duration of 5.5 years. Preliminary results of the first large-scale multicenter randomized pacing mode selection trial revealed only modest reduction in atrial fibrillation without survival advantage after 3 years of physiologic pacing. Two other large-scale multicenter randomized trials comparing physiologic versus ventricular pacing are currently ongoing. They may provide further scientific evidence based on which more objective recommendations can be made with respect to pacing mode selection.

Effect of pacing mode on morbidity and mortality: update of clinical pacing trials

Retrospective studies have suggested that, in patients with sick sinus syndrome, it has been recognized that atrial, dual-chamber, or other so-called physiologic modes of pacing are associated with a lower incidence of atrial fibrillation, stroke, heart failure, and death than is single-chamber ventricular pacing. Retrospective data in patients with atrioventricular block are less robust, but still suggest lower mortality and morbidity with dual-chamber pacing compared with ventricular pacing alone. Overall, the reduction in risk of atrial fibrillation with dual-chamber compared with ventricular pacing has been calculated at 62%, and for death 36%. Retrospective studies are, of course, potentially subject to bias, and there may be a tendency to implant cheaper, simpler pacemakers in older, sicker patients, which could explain the apparent difference in outcome. Prospective studies are, therefore, required; results from 3 such studies, in which pacing mode was randomly allocated, have been recently published. These, in general, support the apparent benefit of dual-chamber pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome, but give equivocal results in patients with heart block. Other trials are in progress, and their results are awaited. Like all good trials, they will, in addition to providing some answers, generate further questions. They should provide the evidence on which cost-effective pacing policies may be based.

Ventricular pacemaker upgrade: experience, complications and recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To assess outcomes of pacemaker upgrade from single chamber ventricular to dual chamber.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing the procedure.

SETTING

Specialist cardiothoracic unit.

PATIENTS

44 patients (15 female, 29 male), mean (SD) age at upgrade 68.2 (12.9) years.

INTERVENTIONS

Upgrade of single chamber ventricular to dual chamber pacemaker.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Procedure duration and complications.

RESULTS

Principal indications for upgrade were pacemaker syndrome (17), "opportunistic"--that is, at elective generator replacement (8), heart failure (7), non-specific breathlessness/fatigue (7), and neurally mediated syncope (3). Mean (SD) upgrade procedure duration (82.9 (32.6) minutes) significantly exceeded mean VVI implantation duration (42.9 (13.3) minutes) and mean DDD implantation duration (56.6 (22.7) minutes) (both p < 0.01). Complications included pneumothorax (1), ventricular arrhythmia requiring cardioversion (2), protracted procedure (10), atrial lead repositioning within six weeks (8), haematoma evacuation (1), superficial infection (1), and admission to hospital with chest pain (1); 20 patients (45%) suffered one or more complications including four of the eight who underwent opportunistic upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS

Pacemaker upgrade takes longer and has a higher complication rate than either single or dual chamber pacemaker implantation. This suggests that the procedure should be performed by an experienced operator, and should be undertaken only if a firm indication exists. Patients with atrial activity should not be offered single chamber ventricular systems in the belief that the unit can be upgraded later if necessary at minimal risk.