Benefits and limitations of rate adaptive pacing under laboratory and daily life conditions in patients with minute ventilation single chamber pacemakers.

Abstract

Rate adaptive pacing has been shown to improve hemodynamic performance and exercise tolerance during acute testing. However, there remain concerns about its benefit in daily life and possible complications incurred by unnecessary pacing. This double-blind crossover study compared the benefit of rate adaptive (SSIR) versus fixed rate (SSI) pacing under laboratory and daily life conditions in 20 rate incompetent patients with minute ventilation single chamber pacemakers (META II). The heart rate (HR) response during three different exercise tests (treadmill, bicycle ergometry, walking test) was correlated with the Holter findings during daily life in either pacing mode. The maximal HR was significantly higher in the SSIR-mode compared to the SSI-mode, both during laboratory testing (treadmill: 123 +/- 15 vs 93 +/- 29 beats/min; ergometry: 118 +/- 15 vs 89 +/- 27 beats/min; walking test: 127 +/- 9 vs 95 +/- 26 beats/min, all P values < 0.01) as well as during daily life (Holter: 126 +/- 13 vs 103 +/- 24 beats/min, P < 0.01). On Holter, the average HR (71 +/- 14 vs 71 +/- 8 beats/min) and the percentage of paced rhythm (54% vs 62%, SSI- vs SSIR-mode, P = NS) were not different in either mode. However, despite a 30% rate gain in the SSIR-mode, the exercise capacity remained unchanged, and only 38% of patients preferred the SSIR-mode. Minute ventilation pacemakers provide a physiological rate response to exercise. Irrespective of the protocol used, the findings of laboratory testing are comparable to those during daily life. However, patient selection for rate adaptive single chamber pacing should be made with caution, since the objective benefit of restoring normal chronotropy may subjectively be negligible for most patients.