Key result
Post-transplant permanent pacemakers are linked to ~5x more NYHA class II symptoms and higher CAV rates.
Why the study?
Guidelines provide specific pacemaker programming recommendations after heart transplantation, but how variability in pacemaker programming affects morbidity remains unknown.
Does permanent pacemaker implantation and specific programming affect morbidity and exercise capacity in orthotopic heart transplant recipients?
Observational (n=45)
No
Does permanent pacemaker implantation and specific programming affect morbidity and exercise capacity in orthotopic heart transplant recipients?
Heart transplant recipients requiring pacemakers have a greater symptom and comorbidity burden than those without, which does not appear to be mitigated by specific pacemaker programming strategies.
Pacemaker requirement signals higher symptom burden and vasculopathy risk post-transplant; leaves open whether implantation or programming modifies outcomes.
Pacemaker programming recommendations in patients post-heart transplant include a higher lower rate limit, activating rate response mode, maximising battery longevity and minimising ventricular pacing in patients without atrioventricular block. This study sought to investigate how variability in pacemaker programming following orthotopic heart transplant affects morbidity. We conducted a retrospective analysis of heart transplant recipients at a single transplant centre between 1991 and 2023. Patients requiring pacemaker implantation following transplantation were matched with non-pacemaker recipients by age, sex and height. Patient and device characteristics were reviewed. Clinical outcomes, programming and physiological parameters were compared within the pacemaker group and between subject and comparator groups. Forty-five heart transplant recipients were included: 15 with pacemakers and 30 without. Within the pacemaker group, 20% were programmed with LRL > 60 bpm, rate-response mode in 47% and algorithms minimising ventricular pacing in 27%. Fifty-three percent were NYHA class I, and 46% NYHA class II; resting heart rate was similar between the groups (85 (SD14.9) and 79 (SD8) bpm: p = 0.33). NYHA class I group achieved a higher workload (METS 9 (SD2.7) vs. 6.9 (SD1) mL/kg/min: p = 0.21), and peak heart rate (135 (18.8) vs. 123 (14.8) bpm: p = 0.29) during exercise stress echocardiogram (ESE). The pacemaker group was more symptomatic than the comparator group (NYHA class II 46% vs. 10%: p = 0.016) and exhibited higher rates of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (53% vs. 10%: p = 0.005). There is substantial variability in pacemaker programming in heart transplant recipients. Patients who require a pacemaker have a greater symptom and comorbidity burden than those without. No identifiable physiological or programming differences stratified the greater morbidity within the pacemaker cohort.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rubinstein et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Orthotopic heart transplant (n=45). Permanent pacemaker vs. No permanent pacemaker was evaluated on NYHA class II symptoms (p=0.016). Permanent pacemaker requirement in heart transplant recipients was associated with greater symptom burden (NYHA class II 46.7% vs 10.0%) and higher rates of cardiac allograft vasculopathy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: