Clinical comparison of acute single to dual chamber pacing in chronotropically incompetent patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

Abstract

Dual chamber, rate responsive (DDDR) pacing is felt to be superior to ventricular, rate responsive (VVIR) pacing since it more closely mimics the normal electrical and hemodynamic activity of the heart. This reasoning has been used to justify the higher initial costs and increased complexity of dual chamber system. This study was designed to determine if objective criteria could be identified during acute testing justify implanting a dual chamber instead of a single chamber system in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Eight patients with DDDR pacemakers (implanted for chronotropic incompetence) and left ventricular dysfunction underwent exercise radionuclide angiography and graded exercise treadmill testing. Each patient performed the tests in the single (VVIR) and dual (DDDR) chamber modes in a randomized, blinded fashion. We found that objective parameters such as ejection fraction (31% +/- 13% vs 31% +/- 10%), exercise tolerance (6.1 +/- 2.7 min vs 6.3 +/- 2.9 min), oxygen consumption (VO2) (941 +/- 286 mL/min vs 994 +/- 314 mL/min), carbon dioxide production (VCO2) (995 +/- 332 mL/min vs 1054 +/- 356 mL/min), and maximum attainable workload (43 +/- 24 W vs 46 +/- 22 W) did not differ between the single and dual chamber pacing modes. These findings suggest that in the acute setting, the additional cost and complexity of dual chamber, rate responsive pacing cannot be justified by objective improvements in exercise tolerance in patients with underlying left ventricular dysfunction.