A study comparing VVI and DDI pacing in elderly patients with carotid sinus syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether single chamber ventricular demand (VVI) pacing is adequate for elderly patients with carotid sinus syndrome. DESIGN: Prospective double blind randomised cross over study. SETTING: Tertiary referral centre. PATIENTS: 30 consecutive patients aged over 60 years with carotid sinus syndrome referred for cardiac pacing. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent dual chamber pacemaker implantation and were then randomised to two three-month periods of VVI and DDI pacing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to cardiovascular tests (vasodepression during carotid sinus massage, pacemaker effect, postural blood pressure measurements, and response to head up tilt), and symptoms. RESULTS: 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 Eleven patients were unable to tolerate VVI pacing and had to be withdrawn early from this limb of the study (group A).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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Permanent pacemaker use after cardiac transplantation: completing the audit cycle.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of delaying permanent pacemaker implantation in cardiac transplant recipients from less than tree weeks to three weeks or more post transplantation-a change prompted by an earlier audit. DESIGN: Retrospective review of resting 12 lead electrocardiograms and prospective 24 hour ambulatory electrocardiograms. Comparison of pacemaker usage before (period 1) and after (period 2) the policy change in November 1990. SETTING: Outpatient department, supra-regional cardiopulmonary transplant unit. PATIENTS: All 30 consecutive orthotopic cardiac transplant recipients who received a permanent pacemaker within one month of transplantation between May 1985 and August 1995. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presence of pacing on the 12 lead electrocardiogram and during 24 hour ambulatory electro-cardiogram monitoring (pacemaker programmed to 50 beats per minute). RESULTS: 16/152 (10.5%) cardiac transplant recipients received permanent pacemakers in period 1 compared with 14/180 (7.8%) in period 2 (P = NS). Evidence of pacing was seen on 12 lead electrocardiograms at three months in 37.5% recipients in period 1 compared with 78.6% in period 2 (P = 0.03). At six months pacemaker usage had declined to 18.8% in period 1 and 35.7% in period 2 and at three years to 13.3% in period 1 and 40% in period 2 (P = NS for both). 21% patients in period 1 paced on ambulatory 24 hour monitoring compared with 38.5% in period 2 (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Delaying permanent pacemaker implantation to three weeks or more after cardiac transplantation reduced the proportion of permanent pacemaker implantations, slightly but not significantly. There was a significant increase in permanent pacemaker usage at three months post transplantation with trends towards increased usage at later times, suggesting more appropriate selection of patients for permanent pacing.

Permanent pacemaker implantation after cardiac transplantation: extra cost of a conservative policy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the costs of a change in permanent pacemaker implantation policy to later implantation (day 21+) after cardiac transplantation. DESIGN: Retrospective review of patient records including duration of temporary pacing, timed of permanent pacemaker implantation, and length of hospital stay for every patient surviving > or = 14 days from November 1990 to August 1995 (period 2) and for all patients in whom permanent pacemakers were implanted between May 1985 and November 1990 (period 1). SETTING: Supra-regional cardiopulmonary transplant unit. PATIENTS: 335 consecutive adult cardiac transplant recipients at Freeman Hospital between May 1985 and August 1995. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The cost of the policy change was calculated by subtraction of the overall saving in pacemaker implantations from the overall cost of the extra inpatient stay in period 2 due to delayed implantation. RESULTS: Mean inpatient stay per patient following cardiac transplantation of permanent pacemaker recipients in period 1 was 13.8 days compared with 23.9 days in period 2 (P < 0.001). The cost of this extended hospital stay is 60,095 pounds. Had the implantation policy not been changed, a further seven patients would have received a permanent pacemaker in period 2. A saving in pacemaker hardware of 16,275 pounds was made. Overall, however, the new permanent pacemaker implantation policy increased expenditure by 43,820 pounds, assuming that permanent pacemaker implantation was the only reason for the extended hospital stay. CONCLUSION: The change in policy from early to later permanent pacemaker implantation has markedly increased expenditure.