Quality of life and clinical outcomes in elderly patients treated with ventricular pacing as compared with dual-chamber pacing. Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly Investigators. A comparison of symptoms and intra-arterial ambulatory blood pressure during long term dual chamber atrioventricular synchronous (DDD) and ventricular demand (VVI) pacing. Ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing for sinus-node dysfunction. Double blind crossover comparison of the effects of dual chamber pacing (DDD) and ventricular rate adaptive (VVIR) pacing on neuroendocrine variables, exercise performance, and symptoms in complete heart block. A randomized double-blind crossover comparison of four rate-responsive pacing modes. Benefits of dual chamber pacing in sick sinus syndrome. "Subclinical" pacemaker syndrome: a randomised study of symptom free patients with ventricular demand (VVI) pacemakers upgraded to dual chamber devices. Comparison of dual chamber and ventricular rate responsive pacing in patients over 75 with complete heart block. Improved cardiac function and quality of life following upgrade to dual chamber pacing after long-term ventricular stimulation. DDD vs. VVI pacing in patients aged over 75 years with complete heart block: a double-blind crossover comparison. Variability of left atrial bloodflow predicts intolerance of ventricular demand pacing and may cause pacemaker syndrome.
Standard clinical practice permits the use of either single-chamber ventricular pacemakers or dual-chamber pacemakers for most patients who require cardiac pacing. Ventricular pacemakers are less expensive, but dual-chamber pacemakers are believed to be more physiologic. However, it is not known whether either type of pacemaker results in superior clinical outcomes.
                The Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly study was a 30-month, single-blind, randomized, controlled comparison of ventricular pacing and dual-chamber pacing in 407 patients 65 years of age or older in 29 centers. Patients received a dual-chamber pacemaker that had been randomly programmed to either ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing. The primary end point was health-related quality of life as measured by the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey.
                The average age of the patients was 76 years (range, 65 to 96), and 60 percent were men. Quality of life improved significantly after pacemaker implantation (P<0.001), but there were no differences between the two pacing modes in either the quality of life or prespecified clinical outcomes (including cardiovascular events or death). However, 53 patients assigned to ventricular pacing (26 percent) were crossed over to dual-chamber pacing because of symptoms related to the pacemaker syndrome. Patients with sinus-node dysfunction, but not those with atrioventricular block, had moderately better quality of life and cardiovascular functional status with dual-chamber pacing than with ventricular pacing. Trends of borderline statistical significance in clinical end points favoring dual-chamber pacing were observed in patients with sinus-node dysfunction, but not in those with atrioventricular block.
                The implantation of a permanent pacemaker improves health-related quality of life. However, the quality-of-life benefits associated with dual-chamber pacing as compared with ventricular pacing are observed principally in the subgroup of patients with sinus-node dysfunction. Fifteen patients with dual chamber pacemakers implanted for atrioventricular block (11) or sinoatrial disease (4) completed a single blind within-patient comparison of symptoms and 24 hour intra-arterial blood pressure during long term atrioventricular synchronous (DDD) pacing and long term ventricular demand (VVI) pacing. The patients reported significantly less breathlessness, fatigue, and dizziness and a significantly greater sense of general well-being during DDD pacing than during VVI pacing. Twelve of the fifteen patients expressed a strong preference for DDD pacing. Systolic blood pressure tended to be lower and was significantly more variable during VVI pacing than during DDD pacing (mean (SD) daytime systolic blood pressure 132.4 (17.1) and 140.4 (13.1) mm Hg respectively). Accordingly, episodes of hypotension were more common during VVI pacing, which may partly explain why the patients reported more symptoms during this mode of pacing. Dual-chamber (atrioventricular) and single-chamber (ventricular) pacing are alternative treatment approaches for sinus-node dysfunction that causes clinically significant bradycardia. However, it is unknown which type of pacing results in the better outcome.
                We randomly assigned a total of 2010 patients with sinus-node dysfunction to dual-chamber pacing (1014 patients) or ventricular pacing (996 patients) and followed them for a median of 33.1 months. The primary end point was death from any cause or nonfatal stroke. Secondary end points included the composite of death, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure; atrial fibrillation; heart-failure score; the pacemaker syndrome; and the quality of life.
                The incidence of the primary end point did not differ significantly between the dual-chamber group (21.5 percent) and the ventricular-paced group (23.0 percent, P=0.48). In patients assigned to dual-chamber pacing, the risk of atrial fibrillation was lower (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.94; P=0.008), and heart-failure scores were better (P<0.001). The differences in the rates of hospitalization for heart failure and of death, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure were not significant in unadjusted analyses but became marginally significant in adjusted analyses. Dual-chamber pacing resulted in a small but measurable increase in the quality of life, as compared with ventricular pacing.
                In sinus-node dysfunction, dual-chamber pacing does not improve stroke-free survival, as compared with ventricular pacing. However, dual-chamber pacing reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation, reduces signs and symptoms of heart failure, and slightly improves the quality of life. Overall, dual-chamber pacing offers significant improvement as compared with ventricular pacing. To compare the effects of dual chamber pacing (DDD) and ventricular rate adaptive pacing (activity sensing) (VVIR) in patients with complete heart block.
                Double blind crossover comparison with one month in each pacing mode.
                10 consecutive patients aged 23-74 presenting with complete anterograde atrioventricular block at rest and on exercise and with an intact atrial rate response received Synergyst I (Medtronic) pacemakers.
                Symptom scores, maximal exercise performance on a treadmill, and the plasma concentrations of atrial natriuretic peptide, adrenaline, and noradrenaline.
                No significant differences were identified between pacing modes in symptom scores for dyspnoea, fatigue, and mood disturbance; exercise time; and maximal oxygen consumption. One patient with intact ventriculoatrial conduction developed pacemaker syndrome during VVIR pacing. Resting plasma concentrations of atrial natriuretic peptide were raised in complete heart block and were restored to normal by DDD pacing but not by VVIR pacing. Resting plasma catecholamine concentrations were normal in complete heart block and in both pacing modes. During exercise the increase in the concentrations of all three hormones was similar in both pacing modes.
                In patients with complete anterograde and retrograde atrioventricular block, symptoms and maximal exercise performance were no better during DDD than during VVIR pacing. The aim of this study was to compare, both subjectively and objectively, four modern rate-responsive pacing modes in a double-blind crossover design. Twenty-two patients, aged 18 to 81 years, had an activity-sensing dual chamber universal rate-responsive (DDDR) pacemaker implanted for treatment of high grade atrioventricular block and chronotropic incompetence. They were randomly programmed to VVIR (ventricular demand rate-responsive), DDIR (dual chamber demand rate-responsive), DDD (dual chamber universal) or DDDR (dual chamber universal rate-responsive) mode and assessed after 4 weeks of out-of-hospital activity. Five patients, all with VVIR pacing, requested early reprogramming. The DDDR mode was preferred by 59% of patients; the VVIR mode was the least acceptable mode in 73%. Perceived "general well-being," exercise capacity, functional status and symptoms were significantly worse in the VVIR than in dual rate-responsive modes. Exercise treadmill time was longer in DDDR mode (p less than 0.01), but similar in all other modes. During standardized daily activities, heart rate in VVIR and DDIR modes underresponded to mental stress. All rate-augmented modes overresponded to staircase descent, whereas the DDD mode significantly underresponded to staircase ascent. Echocardiography revealed no difference in chamber dimensions, left ventricular fractional shortening or pulmonary artery pressure in any mode. Cardiac output was greater at rest in the dual modes than in the VVIR mode (p = 0.006) but was similar at 120 beats/min. Beat to beat variability of cardiac output was greatest in VVIR mode (p less than 0.0001), with DDIR showing greater variability than DDD or DDDR modes (p less than 0.05). Mitral regurgitation estimated by Doppler color flow imaging was similar in all modes, but tricuspid regurgitation was significantly greater in VVIR than in dual modes (p less than 0.03). Subjects who preferred the DDDR mode and those who found the VVIR mode least acceptable had significantly greater increases in stroke volume when paced in the DDD mode than in the ventricular-inhibited (VVI) mode at rest (22%) when compared with subjects who preferred other modes (2%, p = 0.03). No other objective variable was predictive of subjective benefit from any rate-responsive pacing mode. Thus, dual sensor rate-responsive pacing (DDDR) is superior objectively and subjectively to single sensor (VVIR, DDIR and DDD) pacing and subjective benefit from dual chamber rate-augmented pacing is predictable echocardiographically. The effects of DDD (fully automatic) and VVI (ventricular demand) pacing modes on exercise tolerance, symptom diary cards, and Holter monitoring were investigated in a randomised double blind crossover study of 16 patients who had had DDD pacemakers implanted because of frequent syncope. Eight patients presented with sick sinus syndrome and, with one exception, retrograde atrioventricular conduction and eight age and sex matched patients presented with 2:1 or complete atrioventricular block. Maximal symptom limited exercise in those with atrioventricular block was significantly higher after one month of DDD pacing than after VVI pacing. In those with sick sinus syndrome, however, maximal effort tolerance was not significantly different for the two pacing modes. In all but one patient with sick sinus syndrome sinus rhythm developed during exercise in VVI pacing. For both VVI and DDD modes maximal atrial rates were significantly lower in those with sick sinus syndrome. Palpitation and general wellbeing were significantly improved during DDD pacing in the eight patients with sick sinus syndrome. Shortness of breath was improved by DDD pacing in the eight patients with atrioventricular block but not in those with sick sinus syndrome. Holter monitoring showed that sick sinus syndrome patients remained in paced rhythm, either DDD or VVI, for most of the 24 hour period. DDD pacing was better than VVI pacing in sick sinus syndrome with retrograde atrioventricular conduction. Despite their ability to show sinus rhythm and inhibit their pacemakers on exercise patients with sick sinus syndrome are just as likely to have symptomatic benefit from DDD pacing as patients with atrioventricular block. To determine whether symptom free patients with single chamber pacemakers benefit from dual chamber pacing.
                A randomised double blind crossover comparison of ventricular demand (VVI), dual chamber demand (DDI), and dual chamber universal (DDD) modes after upgrading from a VVI device.
                Cardiology outpatient department.
                Sixteen patients aged 41-84 years who were symptom free during VVI mode pacing for three or more years.
                Pacemaker upgrade during routine generator change.
                Change in subjective (general health perception, symptoms) and objective (clinical assessment, treadmill exercise, and radiological and echocardiographic indices) results between pacing modes before and after upgrading.
                75% preferred DDD, 68% found VVI least acceptable with 12% expressing no preference. Perceived general well-being and exercise capacity (p less than 0.01) and treadmill times (p less than 0.05) were improved in DDD mode but VVI and DDI modes were similar. Clinical, echocardiographic, radiological, and electrophysiological indices confirmed the absence of overt pacemaker syndrome, although mitral and tricuspid regurgitation was greatest in VVI mode (p less than 0.01).
                Most patients who were satisfied with long term pacing in VVI mode benefited from upgrading to DDD mode pacing suggesting the existence of "subclinical" pacemaker syndrome in up to 75% of such patients. The DDI mode offered little subjective or objective benefit over VVI mode in this population and should be reserved for patients with paroxysmal atrial arrhythmias. VVI mode pacing should be used only for patients with very intermittent symptomatic bradycardia or atrial fibrillation with a good chronotropic response during exercise. To compare symptoms and exercise tolerance during dual chamber universal (DDD) and ventricular rate response (VVIR) pacing in elderly (> or = 75) patients.
                Randomised, double blind, crossover study.
                Regional cardiac department.
                Twenty elderly patients (mean age 80.5 (1) years) with high grade atrioventricular block and sinus rhythm. Patients with pre-existing risk factors for the pacemaker syndrome and chronotropic incompetence were excluded.
                After four weeks of VVI pacing following pacemaker implantation, patients underwent consecutive two week periods of VVIR and DDD pacing.
                Patient preference, symptom scores, "daily activity exercises," and perceived level of exercise (Borg score).
                Eleven patients preferred DDD mode to either VVI or VVIR mode. Mean (SE) total symptom scores during VVI, VVIR, and DDD pacing were 5.9 (1.1), 6.1 (1.0), and 3.5 (0.9) respectively (P < 0.01). The corresponding mean (SE) pacemaker syndrome symptom scores were 4.8 (0.7), 5.2 (0.8), and 2.9 (0.8) (P < 0.05). Symptom scores during VVI and VVIR pacing were not significantly different. Exercise performance and Borg scores were significantly worse during VVI pacing compared with VVIR or DDD pacing but did not significantly differ between VVIR and DDD modes.
                In active elderly patients with complete heart block both DDD and VVIR pacing are associated with improved exercise performance compared with fixed rate VVI pacing. The convenience and reduced cost of VVIR systems, however, may be offset by a higher incidence of the pacemaker syndrome. In elderly patients with complete heart block VVIR pacing results in suboptimal symptomatic benefit and should not be used instead of DDD pacing. Many patients with sinus node disease or atrioventricular block have previously received pacemakers with only ventricular stimulation (VVI or VVIR). This study aimed to investigate whether quality of life and cardiac function were affected by an upgrade to dual chamber pacing (DDDR or DDIR) following long-term ventricular stimulation.
                After implantation of an atrial lead and a DDDR pulse generator, a randomized, double-blind crossover study was performed in 19 patients, previously treated with ventricular pacing for a median time of 6 X 8 years. Patients were randomized to 8 weeks with either VVIR or DDDR/DDIR pacing; after this time, the other mode was programmed for 8 weeks. At the end of each period, the patients' quality of life was evaluated and echocardiography was performed together with Holter monitoring and blood samples for brain natriuretic peptide.
                Sixteen of the patients preferred DDDR and two VVIR pacing (P=0 X 001); one was undecided. Seven patients demanded an early crossover while paced in the VVIR mode, vs none in the DDDR mode (P=0 X 008). Quality of life was higher in the DDDR mode in 11 of 17 modalities, reaching statistical significance for dyspnoea (P<0 X 05) and general activity (P<0 X 05). Echocardiography showed significantly larger left ventricular end-diastolic dimensions in the DDDR mode (P=0 X 01), whereas end-systolic dimensions did not differ. Left ventricular systolic function was significantly superior in the DDDR mode (mean aortic velocity-time integral: P<0 X 001) and left atrial diameter was significantly smaller in the DDDR mode (P=0 X 01). The plasma level of brain natriuretic peptide was significantly lower in DDDR mode (P=0 X 002).
                An upgrade to dual chamber rate adaptive pacing results in significantly improved quality of life and cardiac function as compared to continued VVIR stimulation and should thus be considered in patients with ventricular pacemakers who have not developed permanent atrial fibrillation or flutter.
                Copyright 2001 The European Society of Cardiology. We studied 16 patients aged 77-88 years to determine whether elderly patients gain significant benefit from dual-chamber (DDD) compared with single-chamber ventricular demand (VVI) pacing. The study was designed as a double-blind randomized two-period crossover study--each pacing mode was maintained for 7 days. End points included: (i) overall symptoms scores; (ii) exercise tests related to daily activities; and (iii) perceived level of difficulty (Borg score). The mean symptom score in DDD mode was 7.07 (6.38) vs. 12.27 (7.29) in VVI mode (p < 0.006). Dizziness, breathlessness and fatigue were the most noticed symptoms during VVI pacing. One patient dropped out from follow-up and three patients requested early reprogramming, all from VVI mode. Overall, no patient preferred VVI mode, 11 preferred DDD mode and four expressed no preference. There were significant improvements in all objective test performances in DDD mode. Mean (SD) total Borg scores in DDD mode and VVI mode were 36.57 (5.85) and 41.93 (6.49), respectively (p < 0.002). Ventricular demand pacing in elderly patients with complete heart block is associated with higher symptom scores, reduced exercise ability and greater perceived exercise difficulty compared with dual-chamber pacing. Variability of left and right atrial and left ventricular bloodflow was studied using transthoracic and transesophageal Doppler echocardiography and related to pacemaker mode preference during everyday activity. Bloodflow variability was less at all sites during dual chamber pacing compared to single chamber pacing. However, in patients suffering from pacemaker syndrome and who prefer DDDR pacing, significantly increased variability of left atrial antegrade (but not retrograde) bloodflow during VVIR pacing compared to DDDR pacing was noted, which was not evident in patients tolerating VVIR mode pacing. This effect was not detected at any other site and suggests that adverse left atrial hemodynamics may result in intolerance to VVI/R mode pacing and might cause pacemaker syndrome.
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.