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. Dual-chamber pacing for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. True incidence of pacemaker syndrome. Optimum pacing mode for patients with angina pectoris. Physiological versus single-rate ventricular pacing: a double-blind cross-over study. Effects of physiologic pacing versus ventricular pacing on the risk of stroke and death due to cardiovascular causes. Canadian Trial of Physiologic Pacing Investigators. Assessment of permanent dual-chamber pacing as a treatment for drug-refractory symptomatic patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. A randomized, double-blind, crossover study (M-PATHY). Rate adaptive pacing in sick sinus syndrome: effects of pacing modes and intrinsic conduction on physiological responses, arrhythmias, symptomatology and quality of life. A study comparing VVI and DDI pacing in elderly patients with carotid sinus syndrome. Clinical and hemodynamic comparison of VVI versus DDD pacing in patients with DDD pacemakers. Physiological pacing improves symptoms and increases exercise capacity in the elderly patient. A double-blind study of submaximal exercise tolerance and variation in paced rate in atrial synchronous compared to activity sensor modulated ventricular pacing. Pacing in elderly recurrent fallers with carotid sinus hypersensitivity: a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Prevalence of atrial fibrillation and stroke in paced patients without prior atrial fibrillation: a prospective study. A randomized, single-blind crossover comparison of the effects of chronic DDD and dual sensor VVIR pacing mode on quality-of-life and cardiopulmonary performance in complete heart block.
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. In a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial we sought to evaluate the effect of dual-chamber pacing in patients with severe symptoms of hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy.
                Recently, several cohort trials showed that implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker in patients with severely symptomatic hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy can relieve symptoms and decrease the severity of the left ventricular outflow tract gradient. However, the outcome of dual-chamber pacing has not been compared with that of standard therapy in a randomized, double-blind trial.
                Twenty-one patients with severely symptomatic hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy were entered into this trial after baseline studies consisting of Minnesota quality-of-life assessment, two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise tests. Nineteen patients completed the protocol and underwent double-blind randomization to either DDD pacing for 3 months followed by backup AAI pacing for 3 months, or the same study arms in reverse order.
                Left ventricular outflow tract gradient decreased significantly to 55 +/- 38 mm Hg after DDD pacing compared with the baseline gradient of 76 +/- 61 mm Hg (p < 0.05) and the gradient of 83 +/- 59 mm Hg after AAI pacing (p < 0.05). Quality-of-life score and exercise duration were significantly improved from the baseline state after the DDD arm but were not significantly different between the DDD arm and the backup AAI arm. Peak oxygen consumption did not significantly differ among the three periods. Overall, 63% of patients had symptomatic improvement during the DDD arm, but 42% also had symptomatic improvement during the AAI backup arm. In addition, 31% had no change and 5% had deterioration of symptoms during the DDD pacing arm.
                Dual-chamber pacing may relieve symptoms and decrease gradient in patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. In some patients, however, symptoms do not change or even become worse with dual-chamber pacing. Subjective symptomatic improvement can also occur from implantation of the pacemaker without its hemodynamic benefit, suggesting the role of a placebo effect. Long-term follow-up of a large number of patients in randomized trials is necessary before dual-chamber pacing can be recommended for all patients with severely symptomatic hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. Although the purported incidence of pacemaker syndrome according to the literature is only 5%-15%, this is based on a series of patients with VVI pacing. Increasing numbers of studies are being reported in which patients prefer the dual chamber mode despite little benefit being demonstrated on objective testing, suggesting that pacemaker syndrome may be more common than is generally reported. This study was designed to evaluate the reported symptoms in a series of patients programmed to both the VVI and one or more dual chamber modes. Forty unselected patients with dual chamber pacemakers were entered into a blind, randomized trial comparing the symptoms associated with VVI pacing to those associated with dual chamber pacing. Patients were randomized to either VVI or dual chamber pacing. At the end of 1 week, questionnaires rating 16 different symptoms were completed. Blood pressure, LV function, presence of ventriculoatrial conduction, and ability to override the pacemaker were evaluated. The pacemaker was then programmed to the other mode. Overall, 12 of 16 symptoms were significantly worse in the VVI as compared to dual chamber mode. The most highly significant (P less than 0.005) were shortness of breath, dizziness, fatigue, pulsations in the neck or abdomen, cough, and apprehension. Pacemaker syndrome was clinically recognized in 83% of patients paced in the VVI mode with 65% of patients experiencing moderate to severe symptoms. There were no readily identified clinical, hemodynamic, or electrophysiological parameters that predicted which patients would develop pacemaker syndrome. Thus, when patients have an opportunity to experience both pacing modes in close proximity to one another, there is a high incidence of pacemaker syndrome in the VVI mode. A within patient double blind prospective study of symptoms and exercise tolerance was designed to determine the preferred pacing mode in 10 patients with programmable dual chamber pacemakers who also had angina pectoris. Patients were randomly allocated to one month in each of the following modes: ventricular pacing at 70 beats/min (VVI) or atrioventricular synchronous upper rate 150 beats/min (DDD 150) or 100 beats/min (DDD 100). Medications were unchanged throughout the study; none was taking beta blockers. At the end of each month patients underwent an exercise test. During each month patients recorded symptoms and their preferred pacing mode. DDD 100 was the preferred mode (seven patients). There was significantly less chest pain with this mode than with either of the other modes. There were significantly more episodes of dizziness in VVI, and two patients who developed pacemaker syndrome were unable to complete the pacing period. Three patients developed angina during exercise testing in DDD 150. Atrial synchronous ventricular pacing is better than ventricular pacing for the control of symptoms in patients with angina pectoris provided that the upper atrial tracking rate is limited. Previous comparisons of physiological and single-rate ventricular pacing are mostly based on open studies. The present investigation was designed to control possible biases of such a study design with the aim to investigate effects of the two pacing modes on maximal and submaximal exercise tolerance and the subjective feeling of well-being of the patients. Forty-four patients treated with atrioventricular synchronous pacemakers for more than 12 months participated in the study. Their pacemakers were randomly programmed to one 3-week long period of ventricular inhibited and a similar period of atrioventricular synchronous ventricular inhibited pacing. Thereafter, they went through echocardiography, symptom-limited maximal exercise test and answered a questionnaire on subjective symptoms. The study was blind since neither the patients nor the physician conducting the exercise tests were informed of pacing mode. The mean maximal exercise tolerance increased 14% (p less than 0.01) on atrioventricular synchronous pacing. Arterial lactate, respiratory rates and perceived exertion ratings during submaximal levels of exercise were higher on ventricular inhibited pacing, as well as symptoms scored during the two 3-week periods. A majority of patients improved their functional class during atrioventricular synchronous pacing and preferred the physiological pacing mode. Evidence suggests that physiologic pacing (dual-chamber or atrial) may be superior to single-chamber (ventricular) pacing because it is associated with lower risks of atrial fibrillation, stroke, and death. These benefits have not been evaluated in a large, randomized, controlled trial.
                At 32 Canadian centers, patients without chronic atrial fibrillation who were scheduled for a first implantation of a pacemaker to treat symptomatic bradycardia were eligible for enrollment. We randomly assigned patients to receive either a ventricular pacemaker or a physiologic pacemaker and followed them for an average of three years. The primary outcome was stroke or death due to cardiovascular causes. Secondary outcomes were death from any cause, atrial fibrillation, and hospitalization for heart failure.
                A total of 1474 patients were randomly assigned to receive a ventricular pacemaker and 1094 to receive a physiologic pacemaker. The annual rate of stroke or death due to cardiovascular causes was 5.5 percent with ventricular pacing, as compared with 4.9 percent with physiologic pacing (reduction in relative risk, 9.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -10.5 to 25.7 percent [the negative value indicates an increase in risk]; P=0.33). The annual rate of atrial fibrillation was significantly lower among the patients in the physiologic-pacing group (5.3 percent) than among those in the ventricular-pacing group (6.6 percent), for a reduction in relative risk of 18.0 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 0.3 to 32.6 percent; P=0.05). The effect on the rate of atrial fibrillation was not apparent until two years after implantation. The observed annual rates of death from all causes and of hospitalization for heart failure were lower among the patients with a physiologic pacemaker than among those with a ventricular pacemaker, but not significantly so (annual rates of death, 6.6 percent with ventricular pacing and 6.3 percent with physiologic pacing; annual rates of hospitalization for heart failure, 3.5 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively). There were significantly more perioperative complications with physiologic pacing than with ventricular pacing (9.0 percent vs. 3.8 percent, P<0.001).
                Physiologic pacing provides little benefit over ventricular pacing for the prevention of stroke or death due to cardiovascular causes. Dual-chamber pacing (DDD) has been proposed as a treatment alternative to surgery for severely symptomatic patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), based largely on uncontrolled studies.
                This prospective, multicenter trial assessed pacing in 48 symptomatic HCM patients with >/=50 mm Hg basal gradient, refractory to drug therapy. Patients were randomized to 3 months each of DDD pacing and pacing backup (AAI-30) in a double-blind, crossover study design, followed by an uncontrolled and unblinded 6-month pacing trial. With randomization, no significant differences were evident between pacing and no pacing for subjective or objective measures of symptoms or exercise capacity, including NYHA functional class, quality of life score, treadmill exercise time or peak oxygen consumption. After 6 additional months of unblinded pacing, functional class and quality of life score were improved compared with baseline (P<0.01), but peak oxygen consumption was unchanged. Outflow gradient decreased 40%, 82+/-32 mm Hg to 48+/-32 mm Hg (P<0. 001), and was reduced in 57% of patients but showed no change or an increase in 43%. At 12 months, 6 individual patients (12%) showed improved functional capacity; each was 65 to 75 years of age. Left ventricular wall thicknesses in the overall study group showed no remodeling between baseline (22+/-5 mm) and 12 months (21+/-5 mm; P=NS).
                (1) Pacing cannot be regarded as a primary treatment for obstructive HCM; (2) with randomization, perceived symptomatic improvement was most consistent with a substantial placebo effect; (3) longer, uncontrolled pacing periods were associated with some subjective benefit but unaccompanied by objective improvement in cardiovascular performance and should be interpreted cautiously; (4) modest reduction in outflow gradient was achieved in most patients; and (5) a small subset (12%) >/= 65 years of age showed a clinical response, suggesting that DDD pacing could be a therapeutic option for some elderly patients. An atrial-based pacing mode is superior to ventricular constant rate demand pacing (VVI) mode in patients with sick sinus syndrome (SSS) by providing both rate adaptation and atrioventricular (AV) synchrony. The use of a non-atrial sensor to overcome chronotropic incompetence and preserve normal intrinsic AV conduction in pacemaker therapy for SSS was investigated in 15 consecutive patients (mean age 66 +/- 2 years). All had intact AV conduction (antegrade conduction capacity > 100 beats.min-1 and an atrial paced to intrinsic R interval of < or = 220 ms). DDDR pacemakers capable of being programmed into atrial rate adaptive (AAIR), dual chamber rate adaptive (DDDR) and ventricular rate adaptive (VVIR) modes were used. Beginning with an acute study, arterial pressure was invasively assessed in each pacing mode during physiological stresses and low level exercise. In the ambulatory phase, the incidence of ventricular pacing and arrhythmias (Holter recording), diurnal blood pressure changes (ambulatory blood pressure recording), and symptom and quality of life level (questionnaires and interviews) were compared. Despite similar heart rate changes during acute physiological stresses, a higher blood pressure was recorded during AAIR or DDDR pacing compared with VVIR pacing. Systolic blood pressure over 24 h was lower in the VVIR mode (122 +/- 5 mmHg) than AAIR/DDDR pacing (129 +/- 6/128 +/- 6 mmHg, P < 0.05). VVIR pacing was associated with a higher frequency of atrial and ventricular ectopics, with two patients developing paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Ventricular pacing was used in a higher percentage in the DDDR compared with the VVIR mode (64 +/- 11 and 39 +/- 7%, P < 0.03). VVIR pacing was associated with more palpitations, a lower level of general well being and depression. Despite the use of a sensor to overcome chronotropic incompetence, VVIR pacing is a less satisfactory pacing mode for SSS. Although AAIR/DDDR pacing may achieve similar haemodynamic and clinical status, in patients with intact AV conduction, AAIR pacing may be preferable by avoiding an abnormal ventricular activation pattern. To determine whether single chamber ventricular demand (VVI) pacing is adequate for elderly patients with carotid sinus syndrome.
                Prospective double blind randomised cross over study.
                Tertiary referral centre.
                30 consecutive patients aged over 60 years with carotid sinus syndrome referred for cardiac pacing.
                Patients underwent dual chamber pacemaker implantation and were then randomised to two three-month periods of VVI and DDI pacing.
                Responses to cardiovascular tests (vasodepression during carotid sinus massage, pacemaker effect, postural blood pressure measurements, and response to head up tilt), and symptoms.
                11 patients developed profound hypotension during upright carotid sinus massage while pacing VVI compared with only two while pacing DDI. The upright pacemaker effect was greater in VVI (VVI, -31 (SD 19) mm Hg v DDI, -4 (12) mm Hg; P < 0.001). Postural blood pressure measurements and responses to head up tilt did not vary. Eleven patients were unable to tolerate VVI pacing and had to be withdrawn early from this limb of the study (group A). Fourteen of the remainder completed diary cards and did not express a preference (group B). No patient preferred VVI. Group A patients were older (group A, 78 (6) years v group B, 70 (9) years; P < 0.05), were more likely to be female (group A, 73% v group B, 14%; P < 0.01), and were more likely to have orthostatic hypotension while pacing DDI (group A, 46% v group B, 0%; P < 0.01). Group A and B patients could not be differentiated by other prepacing clinical or haemodynamic variables.
                Elderly patients with carotid sinus syndrome are likely to develop symptomatic hypotension following VVI pacing. The optimum pacing mode for individual patients cannot be predicted by simple cardiovascular tests before pacing. To identify better those subgroups of pacemaker recipients who will benefit from dual chamber pacing, 19 patients with DDD pacemakers that were physiologically paced were entered into a blinded, randomized protocol comparing long-term VVI versus DDD pacing. Patients were evaluated in each of the pacing modes for exercise performance, cardiac chamber size, cardiac output, functional status and health perception. Eight patients (42%) insisted on early crossover, from VVI to DDD pacing, after only 1.8 +/- 1.4 weeks because of symptoms consistent with pacemaker syndrome. Overall, 12 patients preferred DDD pacing and no patient preferred VVI pacing (p = 0.001). Percent fractional shortening (30 +/- 8 vs 24 +/- 6%, p = 0.009) and cardiac output (6.3 +/- 2.6 vs 4.4 +/- 2.2 liters/min, p = 0.0001) where significantly greater in the DDD mode. Exercise duration was greater during DDD compared with VVI pacing (11.3 +/- 3.7 vs 10.1 +/- 3.7 minutes, p = 0.006). However, it was only in the crossover subgroup that DDD pacing resulted in significant improvement in exercise performance and health perception compared with VVI pacing. This subgroup of patients was characterized by an intrinsic sinus rate of less than 60 beats/min (4/8 vs 0/11, p = 0.006), ventriculoatrial (VA) conduction (4/8 vs 1/11, p = 0.048), greater increase in exercise peak systolic blood pressure from VVI to DDD mode (21 +/- 12 vs 4 +/- 13 mm Hg, p = 0.02) and greater improvement in exercise capacity from VVI to DDD pacing (2.2 +/- 1.2 vs 0.6 +/- 1.4 minutes, p = 0.03) compared with the other 11 patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) We evaluated the benefits of physiological pacing in the elderly by recruiting 13 subjects > 75 years of age, already fitted with a physiological pacing system. All had been paced for complete or Mobitz II heart block. Double blind cross over study was performed comparing exercise capacity, measuring distance walked on a 6-min walking test and time taken to climb two flights of stairs; and symptoms, evaluated by an activity of daily living questionnaire, in atrioventricular synchronous and ventricular pacing. Mean distance walked was significantly higher in atrioventricular synchronous than in ventricular pacing (360 +/- 65 m vs. 327 +/- 69 m; P < 0.01). No significant difference was found in the ability to climb stairs but there was a marked improvement in the symptomatic questionnaire score, 19 +/- 5 in physiological pacing increasing to 28 +/- 10 with ventricular. Physiological pacing in the elderly produces an increase in exercise tolerance and improves symptoms; therefore, age alone should not be a contraindication to a physiological system. To assess the variation in paced rate during everyday activity and the importance of atrioventricular synchronization (AV synchrony) for submaximal exercise tolerance, atrial synchronous (DDD) and activity rate modulated ventricular (VVI,R) pacing were compared in 17 patients with high degree AV block. The patients were randomly assigned to either mode and evaluated by treadmill exercise to moderate exertion and by 24-hour Holter monitoring after 2 months in the DDD and VVI,R modes, respectively. At the end of the study, the patients were programmed to the pacing mode corresponding to the preferred study period. During the treadmill test, the mean exercise time to submaximal exertion (Borg 5/10), exertion ratings and respiratory rate did not differ between pacing modes despite a significantly lower ventricular rate in the VVI,R mode. The atrial rate during VVI,R pacing was significantly higher than the ventricular rate, but did not differ from the ventricular rate during DDD pacing. There was a diurnal variation in paced rate in both pacing modes. Paced ventricular rate was, however, higher and variation in paced rate greater in DDD compared to VVI,R pacing. Nine patients preferred the DDD mode, three patients preferred the VVI,R mode, while five subjects did not express any preference. The results from this study indicate that the variation in paced rate during activity sensor-driven VVI,R pacing does not match that during DDD pacing neither during everyday activities nor during submaximal treadmill exercise. Nevertheless, no differences in exercise time, Borg ratings, and respiratory rate during submaximal exercise were found. Thus, for most patients with high degree AV block, DDD and VVI,R pacing seem equally satisfactory for submaximal exercise. While carotid sinus syndrome (CSS) is traditionally defined by the association of carotid sinus hypersensitivity (CSH) with syncope, uncertainty remains over the role, if any, of complex pacing in patients with CSH and unexplained or recurrent falls. We sought to clarify the role of dual chamber pacing in this patient group in the first placebo-controlled study in CSH.
                Randomised, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled trial.
                Specialist falls and syncope facility.
                Consecutive subjects aged over 55 years with CSH as the sole attributable cause of three or more unexplained falls in the 6 months preceding enrolment.
                Dual-chamber permanent pacing with rate-drop response programming. The pacemaker was switched on (DDD/RDR) or off (ODO (placebo)) for 6 months, then crossed over to the alternate mode for a further 6 months, in randomised, double-blind fashion.
                The primary outcome measure was number of falls in paced and non-paced modes.
                Twenty-five of 34 subjects (mean 76.8 years (SD 9.0), 27 (79%) female) recruited completed the study. Pacing intervention had no effect on number of falls (4.04 (9.54) in DDD/RDR mode, 3.48 (7.22) in ODO; relative risk of falling in ODO mode 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.10).
                Permanent pacing intervention had no effect on fall rates in older patients with CSH. Further work is urgently needed to clarify the role, if any, of complex pacing in this patient group. Several reports suggest that the incidence of stroke and atrial fibrillation is reduced in patients receiving physiologic pacemakers, compared with patients receiving a ventricular pacemaker.
                The study was undertaken to address the impact of different pacing modalities on the incidence of stroke and atrial fibrillation.
                We prospectively analyzed 210 consecutive patients. Those with previous episodes of cerebral ischemia and/or atrial fibrillation were excluded from the study. The study population included 100 patients paced for total atrioventricular (AV) block or second-degree AV block (type II Mobitz) and 110 patients paced for sick sinus syndrome (SSS). The pacing mode was randomized. All patients underwent a brain computed tomography (CT) scan at the date of enrollment and after 1 and 2 years. Patients were followed for 2 years, and the incidence of atrial fibrillation and stroke was evaluated.
                The incidence of atrial fibrillation was 10% at 1 year and 11% at 2 years. Comparing the different pacing modalities, we reported an increase in the incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients receiving ventricular pacing (p < 0.05). On the other hand, no difference was found between patients paced for AV block and those paced for SSS. At the end of follow-up, we reported 29 cases of cerebral ischemia: 9 patients had AV block while 20 had SSS (p < 0.05). Comparing the different pacing modalities, there was an increase in the incidence of stroke in patients receiving ventricular pacing (p < 0.05).
                There was an increase in the incidence of stroke and atrial fibrillation in patients with ventricular pacing. The aim of this study was to compare DDD and dual sensor VVIR (activity and QT) pacing modes in complete AV block (CAVB). Eighteen patients (14 men and 4 women, aged 70 +/- 6.5 years) implanted with a dual chamber, dual sensor pacemaker for CAVB with normal sinus node chronotropic function were studied. A quality-of-life and cardiovascular symptom questionnaire, and a treadmill exercise test were completed after a period of VVIR and a period of DDD pacing, each lasting 1 month. Overall quality-of-life and cardiovascular symptoms did not significantly differ, though three patients felt discomfort during VVIR mode. There was no significant statistical difference in cardiopulmonary parameters. DDD and VVIR modes yielded the following respective data: maximum heart rate = 105.7 +/- 21.8 beats/minute versus 107.6 +/- 21.6 beats/minute (NS); maximum workload = 60 +/- 33.4 W versus 59.3 +/- 37.8 W (NS); treadmill duration = 10.1 +/- 3.8 minute versus 10.1 +/- 3.6 minute (NS); oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold = 14.6 +/- 4.1 mL/kg per minute versus 14.9 +/- 4.6 mL/kg per minute (NS); maximum minute ventilation = 49.6 +/- 9L/min versus 46 +/- 12 L/min (NS); and respiratory quotient = 1.08 +/- 0.15 versus 1.08 +/- 0.13 (NS). We conclude that, during a 1-month follow-up period, no difference was found between DDD and dual sensor VVIR (QT and activity) pacing modes in CAVB patients with regard to quality-of-life and cardiopulmonary performance, though a trend toward an increased sense of well being was noted with the DDD mode.
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.