Why the study?
Does DDD mode pacing improve hemodynamic response compared to VVI mode pacing in both supine and upright positions in patients with dual chamber pacemakers?
Does DDD mode pacing improve hemodynamic response compared to VVI mode pacing in both supine and upright positions in patients with dual chamber pacemakers?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The hemodynamic benefit of atrioventricular synchronous (DDD) pacing over VVI pacing is maintained when patients assume an upright position.
In order to determine whether the hemodynamic benefit of atrioventricular synchronous pacing is maintained in the upright position, 14 patients with dual chamber pacemakers were paced in VVI mode and DDD mode in both the supine and standing position. The hemodynamic response was assessed by measuring the velocity time integral derived from the pulsed-wave Doppler signal in the left ventricular outflow tract during VVI pacing and dual chamber pacing at three different AV delays (125, 200, 250 ms). In the supine position, the velocity time integral during VVI pacing was 14.6 +/- 3.0 cm and this increased during DDD pacing at all three AV delays (17.7 +/- 3.3, 17.9 +/- 3.0, 17.5 +/- 3.5 cm). In the upright position, the velocity time integral during VVI pacing was 12.9 +/- 3.5 cm and this increased with DDD pacing (15.5 +/- 3.3, 15.1 +/- 4.0, 15.1 +/- 3.9 cm). It was concluded that although stroke volume decreases when assuming the upright position, the beneficial response to dual chamber pacing is maintained and equals that observed in the supine position.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoeschen et al. (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: