Impact of rate-modulated pacing on quality of life and exercise capacity--evidence from the Advanced Elements of Pacing Randomized Controlled Trial (ADEPT).

BACKGROUND: Ninety-nine percent of pacemakers implanted in the United States include an option for rate modulation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether dual-chamber rate-modulated pacing, when compared with dual-chamber pacing alone, improved quality of life. METHODS: This was a single-blind randomized controlled trial comparing dual-chamber with rate-modulated dual-chamber pacing. Patients were enrolled between January 12, 2000, and January 10, 2002, with 1-year follow-up ending December 19, 2002. The study was a U.S. multicenter trial, with 95 sites participating. All patients received a rate modulation-capable dual-chamber pacemaker for standard indications. Patients were screened with an exercise test (Chronotropic Assessment Exercise Protocol) 1 month later. One thousand two hundred seventy-three patients were enrolled; 401 proved ineligible, and 872 (68%) made up the randomized patient cohort. Randomized patients had a mean age of 71 years, 64% were men, and 64% had sinus node dysfunction. Randomization was in a factorial design to (1) dual-chamber rate-modulated pacing versus dual-chamber pacing and (2) automatic mode switching versus no automatic mode switching. The present report is limited to the comparison of rate modulation with no rate modulation (DDDR vs. DDD). The primary endpoint was the score on the Specific Activity Scale, an activity-based cardiovascular disease-specific instrument at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included 6-month treadmill time and additional cardiovascular disease-specific, and generic health-related quality-of-life instruments at 1 year. RESULTS: At 6 months, patients with rate modulation had a higher peak exercise heart rate (rate modulation 113.3 +/- 19.6, no rate modulation 101.1 +/- 21.1; P <.0001). Total exercise time was not different between groups. At 1 year, there were no significant differences between groups with respect to Specific Activity Scale or the secondary quality-of-life endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that rate modulation is ineffective in improving the functional status or quality of life of patients with a bradycardia indication for dual-chamber pacing.

Prospective randomized study of mode switching in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in pacemaker patients with sinus node dysfunction (SND) and may result in rapid ventricular pacing (RVP) in the DDDR mode. Mode switching (MS) reduces RVP, but its clinical benefit in patients with SND is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred two patients in the Mode Selection Trial (MOST; 2,010-patient, 6-year trial of DDDR vs VVIR pacing in SND) randomized to DDDR pacemakers with atrial high-rate episode (AHRE) storage capabilities were subrandomized to MS ON (N = 96) or MS OFF (N = 106). Cardiovascular symptoms, quality of life (QOL), reprogramming due to RVP, death, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) were compared between groups. The treatment groups were similar with regard to AF history (59% MS ON vs 57% MS OFF). AHREs occurred in 49% patients during median follow-up of 2.2 years. Median AHRE duration (in min; MS ON 116 vs MS OFF 58, P = 0.29), frequency AHREs/week (MS ON 3.5 vs MS OFF 6.4, P = 0.23), and time spent in AHRE (min/week) (MS ON 450, MS OFF 268) were similar. Reprogramming due to any RVP during AHREs occurred more in MS OFF vs MS ON (13.2% vs 3.1%, P = 0.011) and marginally more for symptomatic RVP (8.5% vs 2.1%, P = 0.062). Cardiovascular symptoms occurred in 93.6% MS ON vs 90.2% MS OFF (P = 0.38). Median number of symptoms reported per visit was similar (MS ON 1.3 vs MS OFF 1.5, P = 0.62). Median symptom frequency/severity, summed and averaged over visits, was similar (MS ON 4.3 vs MS OFF 4.5, P = 0.74). QOL was not different between groups. Death, stroke, and HFH were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: MS reduces pacemaker reprogramming due to RVP during AHREs in a small number of patients but does not improve QOL or cardiovascular symptoms overall among patients with SND.

Right ventricular outflow versus apical pacing in pacemaker patients with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies suggest that right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing has deleterious effects. Whether the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) is a more optimal site for permanent pacing in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) has not been established. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a randomized, cross-over trial to determine whether quality of life (QOL) is better after 3 months of RVOT than RVA pacing in 103 pacemaker recipients with CHF, left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction < or = 40%), and chronic atrial fibrillation (AF). An additional aim was to compare dual-site (RVOT + RVA, 31-ms delay) with single-site RVA and RVOT pacing. QRS duration was shorter during RVOT (167 +/- 45 ms) and dual-site (149 +/- 19 ms) than RVA pacing (180 +/- 58 ms, P < 0.0001). At 6 months, the RVOT group had higher (P = 0.01) role-emotional QOL subscale scores than the RVA group. At 9 months, there were no significant differences in QOL scores between RVOT and RVA groups. Comparing RVOT to RVA pacing within the same patient, mental health subscale scores were better (P = 0.03) during RVOT pacing. After 9 months of follow-up, LVEF was higher (P = 0.04) in those assigned to RVA rather than RVOT pacing between months 6 and 9. After 3 months of dual-site RV pacing, physical functioning was worse (P = 0.04) than during RVA pacing, mental health was worse (P = 0.02) than during RVOT pacing, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was slightly better (P = 0.03) than during RVOT pacing. There were no other significant differences between RVA, RVOT and dual-site RV pacing in QOL scores, NYHA class, distance walked in 6 minutes, LV ejection fraction, or mitral regurgitation. CONCLUSION: In patients with CHF, LV dysfunction, and chronic AF, RVOT and dual-site RV pacing shorten QRS duration but after 3 months do not consistently improve QOL or other clinical outcomes compared with RVA pacing.

The effect of atrial pacing therapies on atrial tachyarrhythmia burden and frequency: results of a randomized trial in patients with bradycardia and atrial tachyarrhythmias.

OBJECTIVES: The Atrial Therapy Efficacy and Safety Trial (ATTEST) was a prospective, randomized study to evaluate preventive pacing and antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial tachycardia (AT). BACKGROUND: The effect of the combination of atrial prevention and termination algorithms on AT/AF burden and frequency in pacemaker patients is unknown. METHODS: A DDDRP pacemaker (AT500, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) with three atrial preventive pacing algorithms and two ATP algorithms was implanted in 368 patients. Patients were randomized one-month post-implant to all prevention and ATP therapies ON or OFF and followed for three months. The OFF group had DDDR pacing at a lower programmed rate of 60 ppm. The AT/AF burden and frequency were determined from daily device counters in 324 patients treated according to protocol. RESULTS: In 17,018 episodes with stored electrograms, appropriate detection was confirmed in 17,004 (99.9%). The median percentage of atrial pacing was 98% in the ON group versus 75% in the OFF group (p < 0.001). Using device-defined criteria for successful termination, ATP terminated 8,590 (54%) of 15,789 treated episodes. The median AT/AF burden during the three-month study period was 4.2 h/month ON versus 1.1 h/month OFF (p = 0.20). The median AT/AF frequency was 1.3 episodes/month ON versus 1.2 episodes/month OFF (p = 0.65). System-related, complication-free survival at four months was 90.2% (Kaplan-Meier estimate). CONCLUSIONS: This DDDRP pacemaker is safe, has accurate AT/AF detection, and provides ATP with 54% efficacy as defined by the device. The atrial prevention and termination therapies combined did not reduce AT/AF burden or frequency in this patient population.

Ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing for sinus-node dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.