Cargando…

Single-chamber Versus Dual-chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Do We Need Physiologic Pacing in The Course?

BACKGROUND: Many patients with ICD receive different antiarrhythmic drugs (e.g. sotalol, amiodarone, β-blockers) because of ventricular or atrial tachycardias. These drugs can cause AV-block or chronotropic incompetence resulting in a higher percentage of ventricular pacing. METHODS: We analyzed in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Budeus, Marco, Buck, Thomas, Wieneke, Heinrich, Erbel, Raimund, Sack, Stefan
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Group 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1513535/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16943965
_version_ 1782128499993083904
author Budeus, Marco
Buck, Thomas
Wieneke, Heinrich
Erbel, Raimund
Sack, Stefan
author_facet Budeus, Marco
Buck, Thomas
Wieneke, Heinrich
Erbel, Raimund
Sack, Stefan
author_sort Budeus, Marco
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Many patients with ICD receive different antiarrhythmic drugs (e.g. sotalol, amiodarone, β-blockers) because of ventricular or atrial tachycardias. These drugs can cause AV-block or chronotropic incompetence resulting in a higher percentage of ventricular pacing. METHODS: We analyzed in a retrospective study the impact of DDD(R) versus VVI(R) mode on subjective (NYHA classification) and objective parameters [brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), 6 minute walk test, echocardiography] in 12 of 120 patients (age 60.2 ± 11.2 years; 10 males, 2 females) who needed an upgrading of a single to a dual chamber ICD. The ICD had to be upgraded because of chronotropic incompetence in all patients with signs of progressing heart failure. Data were collected in VVI(R)-pacing and after 6 and 12 months in DDD(R)-pacing with a long AV-interval and AV hysteresis to reduce ventricular pacing. RESULTS: The 6 minute walk test (392.4 ± 91.4 vs. 324.6 ± 93.3 m, P < 0.001), NYHA-classification (1.4 ± 0.3 vs. 2.6 ± 0.8, P < 0.0001), BNP (234.1 ± 73.5 vs. 410.4 ± 297.0 pg/ml, P < 0.001), left ventricular ejection fraction (49.8 ± 9.6 vs. 36.5 ± 10.9 %, P < 0.0001) and A-wave (73.6 ± 13.7 vs. 41.0 ± 14.0 cm/sec, P < 0.0001) improved with DDD(R)-pacing after 12 months. The ventricular pacing decreased (84.2 ± 18.1 vs. 1.1 ± 1.7 %, P < 0.0001) after 12 months by DDD(R)-pacing with long AV-interval (220.0 ± 10.4 ms) and AV hysteresis. CONCLUSION: Our data show a superiority of DDD(R) mode versus VVI(R) mode regarding subjective and objective parameters as NYHA-classification, BNP, 6 minute walk test, left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular endsystolic volume after 12 months. The improvements seem to depend on the reduction of ventricular pacing with advanced atrial contraction. But only a small number of patients needed the upgradation.
format Text
id pubmed-1513535
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-15135352006-08-29 Single-chamber Versus Dual-chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Do We Need Physiologic Pacing in The Course? Budeus, Marco Buck, Thomas Wieneke, Heinrich Erbel, Raimund Sack, Stefan Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J Original Article BACKGROUND: Many patients with ICD receive different antiarrhythmic drugs (e.g. sotalol, amiodarone, β-blockers) because of ventricular or atrial tachycardias. These drugs can cause AV-block or chronotropic incompetence resulting in a higher percentage of ventricular pacing. METHODS: We analyzed in a retrospective study the impact of DDD(R) versus VVI(R) mode on subjective (NYHA classification) and objective parameters [brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), 6 minute walk test, echocardiography] in 12 of 120 patients (age 60.2 ± 11.2 years; 10 males, 2 females) who needed an upgrading of a single to a dual chamber ICD. The ICD had to be upgraded because of chronotropic incompetence in all patients with signs of progressing heart failure. Data were collected in VVI(R)-pacing and after 6 and 12 months in DDD(R)-pacing with a long AV-interval and AV hysteresis to reduce ventricular pacing. RESULTS: The 6 minute walk test (392.4 ± 91.4 vs. 324.6 ± 93.3 m, P < 0.001), NYHA-classification (1.4 ± 0.3 vs. 2.6 ± 0.8, P < 0.0001), BNP (234.1 ± 73.5 vs. 410.4 ± 297.0 pg/ml, P < 0.001), left ventricular ejection fraction (49.8 ± 9.6 vs. 36.5 ± 10.9 %, P < 0.0001) and A-wave (73.6 ± 13.7 vs. 41.0 ± 14.0 cm/sec, P < 0.0001) improved with DDD(R)-pacing after 12 months. The ventricular pacing decreased (84.2 ± 18.1 vs. 1.1 ± 1.7 %, P < 0.0001) after 12 months by DDD(R)-pacing with long AV-interval (220.0 ± 10.4 ms) and AV hysteresis. CONCLUSION: Our data show a superiority of DDD(R) mode versus VVI(R) mode regarding subjective and objective parameters as NYHA-classification, BNP, 6 minute walk test, left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular endsystolic volume after 12 months. The improvements seem to depend on the reduction of ventricular pacing with advanced atrial contraction. But only a small number of patients needed the upgradation. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Group 2006-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC1513535/ /pubmed/16943965 Text en Copyright: © 2006 Budeus et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Budeus, Marco
Buck, Thomas
Wieneke, Heinrich
Erbel, Raimund
Sack, Stefan
Single-chamber Versus Dual-chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Do We Need Physiologic Pacing in The Course?
title Single-chamber Versus Dual-chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Do We Need Physiologic Pacing in The Course?
title_full Single-chamber Versus Dual-chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Do We Need Physiologic Pacing in The Course?
title_fullStr Single-chamber Versus Dual-chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Do We Need Physiologic Pacing in The Course?
title_full_unstemmed Single-chamber Versus Dual-chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Do We Need Physiologic Pacing in The Course?
title_short Single-chamber Versus Dual-chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Do We Need Physiologic Pacing in The Course?
title_sort single-chamber versus dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators: do we need physiologic pacing in the course?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1513535/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16943965
work_keys_str_mv AT budeusmarco singlechamberversusdualchamberimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatorsdoweneedphysiologicpacinginthecourse
AT buckthomas singlechamberversusdualchamberimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatorsdoweneedphysiologicpacinginthecourse
AT wienekeheinrich singlechamberversusdualchamberimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatorsdoweneedphysiologicpacinginthecourse
AT erbelraimund singlechamberversusdualchamberimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatorsdoweneedphysiologicpacinginthecourse
AT sackstefan singlechamberversusdualchamberimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatorsdoweneedphysiologicpacinginthecourse