A modified algorithm for choosing the most appropriate intraoperative pacemaker mode for patients with permanent pacemaker in non-cardiac surgery.

To avoid the risk of R-on-T incident and the unnecessary decrease of cardiac output, we devised an algorithm consisting of six steps for choosing the most appropriate intraoperative pacemaker (PM) mode, which is modified from Heart Rhythm Society and the American Society of Anesthesiologists expert consensus statement. Following this algorithm, we reviewed previous operations at our hospital to evaluate the appropriateness of the choices. Six of 78 cases (7.7%) were unfit to the algorithm because of an inappropriate mode change. The PM mode was changed preoperatively in four patients, even though the surgical site was under the umbilicus. In one case of the two other cases, the PM mode was changed from AAI to VOO. This case could not be avoided by the previous algorithm of the expert clinical statements. In another case, the anesthesiologist did not change PM mode even though the patient underwent parotidectomy and his heart rate depended on PM. Prospective research on this algorithm could clarify its usefulness in the future. Moreover, discussions about this algorithm could help develop this field of study and improve the intraoperative management of PMs.

Impact of pacemaker mode in patients with atrioventricular conduction disturbance after trans-catheter aortic valve implantation.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the impact of pacemaker mode programming on clinical outcomes in patients with high-degree atrioventricular conduction disturbance (AVCD) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). BACKGROUND: Although high-degree AVCD after TAVI can receive pacemaker, recovery of the AVCD is often observed. Specific pacemaker algorithms (AAI-DDD mode switch) are available which favor spontaneous atrioventricular conduction. METHODS: Of 1,621 consecutive multi-center TAVI patients, 269 (16.4%) received pacemaker. We retrospectively included 91 patients with persistent high-degree AVCD at hospital discharge. Pacemaker dependency was defined as absence, inadequate intrinsic ventricular rhythm, or ventricular pacing time > 95% on pacemaker interrogation during follow-up. Comparison of heart failure hospitalization and death between conventional DDD (cDDD) and other modes was examined (AAI-DDD and VVI). RESULTS: During a mean follow-up duration of 13 months, the pacemaker dependency rate was 52.8%. Patients with cDDD mode (N = 36: 40.0%) had significantly more pacemaker dependency. Multivariate analysis showed that cDDD mode was independently associated with pacemaker dependency (odds ratio = 3.63, P = 0.03). Moreover, cDDD patients had a significant higher incidence of heart failure hospitalization (Hospitalization: cDDD vs. others = 45.4% vs. 18.2%, P = 0.03) and had a higher incidence of mortality (Death: cDDD vs. the others = 27.0% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Up to half of patients implanted for high-degree AVCD after TAVI had conduction recovery. Patients with cDDD programming at hospital discharge had more pacemaker dependency and a worse cardiac prognosis. Thus, pacemaker mode should be systematically set to promote spontaneous atrioventricular conduction in patients with pacemaker implantation after TAVI.

The Symptoms and Clinical events associated with Automatic Reprogramming (SCARE) at replacement notification study.

BACKGROUND: Pacemaker patients experience battery depletion that activates pacemaker's alert for replacement notification. Automatic reprogramming at replacement notification can result in loss of rate response and atrioventricular (AV) synchrony. OBJECTIVE: To determine if relevant symptoms or clinical events may be associated with automatic reprogramming at replacement notification. METHODS: Electronic medical record review was undertaken for 298 patients referred for pacemaker generator replacement. Primary endpoints were symptoms or clinical events during replacement notification period. RESULTS: Following elimination of duplicate pacemaker replacements (n = 12), "near-replacement notification" or "recalled" (n = 15) and pacemakers at "end of life" (n = 5), 266 subjects were included. Three distinct reprogramming cohorts were identified; those with no change (control) in pacing mode (n = 46), those with loss of rate response (n = 154), and those with loss of AV synchrony ± rate response (n = 66). In total, 83 subjects (31.2%) had symptoms with significant differences seen between groups (control = 4.3%, loss of rate response = 26.0%, loss of AV synchrony ± rate response = 62.1%, P < 0.001). Overall, 28 subjects (10.5%) experienced clinical events with significant differences seen between groups (control = 0.0%, loss of rate response = 6.5%, loss of AV synchrony ± rate response = 27.3%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Automatic reprogramming at replacement notification was associated with significant symptoms in 26% of those who lost rate response and in 62% of those who lost AV synchrony ± rate response. Additionally, 27% of the latter cohort required nonelective clinical care.

Ischemic Stroke with Cardiac Pacemaker Implantation: Comparison of Physiological and Ventricular Pacing Modes.

BACKGROUND: The clinical characteristics of ischemic stroke in patients with a pacemaker (PM) are not well understood. METHODS: Forty-six ischemic stroke patients with a PM were investigated retrospectively, and the impact of different pacing modes was compared. RESULTS: The patients were divided into a physiological pacing group (n = 22) and a ventricular pacing group (n = 24). The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) was significantly higher in the ventricular pacing group (36% versus 75%; P = .008). The mean left atrial dimension was relatively large in the ventricular pacing group than in the physiological pacing group (44.5 ± 6.7 mm versus 39.1 ± 8.5 mm, respectively; P = .071). Twenty-four percent of the patients were receiving anticoagulants, whereas 41% of the patients were receiving antiplatelet drugs. Cardioembolism was the most common stroke subtype in both groups. Although there was no statistically significant difference, neurological severity on admission was higher in the ventricular pacing group than in the physiological pacing group (P = .061). Functional outcomes, excluding patients with transient ischemic attack or prior stroke, significantly declined in the ventricular pacing group compared with the physiological pacing group (P = .044). CONCLUSIONS: The avoidance of the ventricular pacing mode may result in improved clinical outcomes. In patients without persistent AF, it may be important to select physiological pacing instead of ventricular pacing to decrease potential stroke severity.

Safety and efficiency of ventricular pacing prevention with an AAI-DDD changeover mode in patients with sinus node disease or atrioventricular block: impact on battery longevity-a sub-study of the ANSWER trial.

AIMS: This ANSWER (EvaluAtioN of the SafeR mode in patients With a dual chambER pacemaker indication) sub-study assesses safety and effectiveness of SafeR™ and the impact of ventricular pacing (VP) prevention on anticipated device longevity and replacement rate. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients implanted for atrioventricular block (AVB, n = 310) or sinus node dysfunction (SND, n = 336) were randomly assigned to SafeR (n = 314) or DDD (n = 318) and followed for 36 months. Safety, median VP, estimated device longevity (mean difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]), and anticipated replacement rates were analysed by pacing mode and implant indication. No difference in mortality, syncope, or mode intolerance was observed between randomization groups regardless of the indication. Ventricular pacing on SafeR vs. DDD was 11.5 vs. 93.6% in the overall population (P < 0.001), 89.2 vs. 83.8% in permanent AVB (P = 0.944), 53.5 vs. 98.2% in intermittent AVB (P < 0.001), and 2.2 vs. 84.7% in SND (P < 0.001). Anticipated median device longevity increased on SafeR by 14 [Q1 10; Q3 17] months [10; 17] (P < 0.001) in the overall population, 9 months [-5; 22] (P = 0.193) in permanent AVB, 14 months [8; 19] (P < 0.001) in intermittent AVB, and 14 months [9; 19] (P < 0.001) in SND. In intermittent AVB and SND, prolonged estimated battery longevity translated into the prevention of one anticipated replacement in at least 23% of patients. CONCLUSION: SafeR was effective in reducing VP in intermittent AVB and in SND. No effect was observed in permanent AVB. No safety issue was observed. Ventricular pacing reduction by SafeR translated into relevant estimated prolongation of device longevity and anticipated reduction of required replacements.