Ventricular pacing maintained exercise stroke volume similar to atrial synchronous pacing by increasing contractility, resulting in a higher ejection fraction (74% vs 69%, p=0.002).
Does ventricular pacing alter cardiac volumes and contractility compared to atrial synchronous pacing during exercise in patients with normal ventricular function?
Ventricular pacing maintains exercise stroke volume comparable to atrial synchronous pacing in patients with normal ventricular function through a compensatory increase in contractility.
Absolute Event Rate: 74% vs 69%
p-value: p=0.002
Although atrial synchronous and rate-responsive ventricular pacing have been compared, the importance of maintaining synchronized atrial systole in addition to rate responsiveness has been incompletely defined. That is, the effects of these two pacing modes on cardiac volumes and contractility have not been studied. Accordingly, 16 patients with normal ventricular function were studied while in the upright position and at rest with gated radionuclide ventriculography during both atrial synchronous and ventricular pacing. Twelve of these patients were also studied during low-level upright exercise (300 kilopond-meters). Rest and exercise ventricular pacing heart rates were matched to those recorded with synchronous pacing. Ventricular volumes were determined with a counts-based method. The ejection fraction and peak systolic pressure/end-systolic volumes or contractility between the two pacing modes. However, during exercise to identical heart rates, blood pressures, and workloads, although stroke volume was the same during exercise with atrial synchronous and ventricular pacing (78 +/- 13 vs 75 +/- 12 ml), end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were lower with ventricular pacing than with atrial synchronous pacing (end-diastolic volume 101 +/- 13 vs 113 +/- 16 ml, p less than .001; end-systolic volume 26 +/- 4 vs 35 +/- 7 ml, p less than .001). Stroke volume during ventricular paced exercise was maintained at atrial synchronous pacing levels by means of increased contractility (ejection fraction of 74 +/- 4% during ventricular pacing vs 69 +/- 5% during atrial synchronous pacing, p = .002; peak systolic pressure/end-systolic volume ratio of 6.51 +/- 1 during ventricular pacing vs 4.85 +/- 1 during atrial synchronous pacing, p less than .001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Ausubel et al. (Fri,) conducted a other in Normal ventricular function requiring pacing (n=16). Ventricular pacing vs. Atrial synchronous pacing was evaluated on Ejection fraction during exercise (p=0.002). Ventricular pacing maintained exercise stroke volume similar to atrial synchronous pacing by increasing contractility, resulting in a higher ejection fraction (74% vs 69%, p=0.002).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: