Dual Chamber Pacing for Patients With Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy: A Clinical Perspective in 2000

Abstract

In some patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, the dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstructive gradient results in exercise-limiting symptoms of dyspnea, angina, and syncope. Dual chamber pacing has been proposed as a widely available alternative treatment for a subset of patients with symptomatic hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. Initial studies showed a reduction in gradient and an improvement in symptoms in almost 90% of patients with severe symptoms. We report the Mayo Clinic experience with dual chamber pacing in 38 patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy who had permanent pacemakers implanted for limiting symptoms intractable to medical therapy. After a mean ± SD follow-up of 24±14 months, subjective improvement was reported in 47% of patients. However, there was no statistical difference between the maximal oxygen consumption at last follow-up and AAI pacing (atrial sensing and atrial pacing) (18.6±1.1 mL·kg−1.min−1) (ie, when the pacemaker was implanted but not pacing continuously). This article discusses the clinical perspective on the utility of dual chamber pacing for patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. In some patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, the dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstructive gradient results in exercise-limiting symptoms of dyspnea, angina, and syncope. Dual chamber pacing has been proposed as a widely available alternative treatment for a subset of patients with symptomatic hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. Initial studies showed a reduction in gradient and an improvement in symptoms in almost 90% of patients with severe symptoms. We report the Mayo Clinic experience with dual chamber pacing in 38 patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy who had permanent pacemakers implanted for limiting symptoms intractable to medical therapy. After a mean ± SD follow-up of 24±14 months, subjective improvement was reported in 47% of patients. However, there was no statistical difference between the maximal oxygen consumption at last follow-up and AAI pacing (atrial sensing and atrial pacing) (18.6±1.1 mL·kg−1.min−1) (ie, when the pacemaker was implanted but not pacing continuously). This article discusses the clinical perspective on the utility of dual chamber pacing for patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy.