Why the study?
Does VVIR pacing improve exercise capacity and symptom scores compared to VVI pacing in elderly patients with symptomatic complete heart block?
Does VVIR pacing improve exercise capacity and symptom scores compared to VVI pacing in elderly patients with symptomatic complete heart block?
Single setting rate responsive ventricular pacing (VVIR) improves exercise capacity and reduces symptoms during daily activities compared to fixed rate VVI pacing in elderly patients with complete heart block.
Supports preferring VVIR over VVI in elderly complete heart block; confirms exercise capacity gains in this RCT population.
In order to assess the value of a simple, single setting rate response option to VVI pacing, 12 patients (mean age 75.1 +/- 6.2, range 62-83 years, seven males, five females) with symptomatic complete heart block were entered into a double-blind, randomized crossover trial of VVI versus VVIR (single setting rate responsive) pacing using Medtronic Activitrax pacemakers. Assessment was by time taken in seconds (sec) and Borg scale symptom score (6-20) for simple activities (standing from chair x 30; walking 800 meters; 52 steps on stairs [slow and fast pace], and incremental, noninclined maximal treadmill exercise), performed after a 4-week period with the patient in each pacing mode. Times were significantly improved in VVIR mode for standing from chair [mean +/- SD] (78.7 +/- 22.5 vs 70.7 +/- 19.5 sec; P less than 0.05), for 800 m walk (1032 +/- 80 vs 885 +/- 59 sec; P less than 0.05), fast ascent of stairs (29.5 +/- 7.7 vs 26.5 +/- 5.6 sec; P less than 0.02), and treadmill exercise (626.7 +/- 189.5 vs 741.0 +/- 170.2 sec, P less than 0.005) although no difference in time for slow stair ascent was demonstrated. Symptom scores were significantly less in VVIR for standing from chair (12.7 +/- 2.8 vs 10.3 +/- 1.8; P less than 0.01), 800 m walk (10.9 +/- 2.7 vs 9.0 +/- 2.4; P less than 0.01), slow ascent of stairs (11.6 +/- 2.1 vs 10.0 +/- 2.0; P less than 0.01), and fast ascent of stairs (13.0 +/- 2.0 vs 11.7 +/- 1.9; P less than 0.02) but unchanged for treadmill exercise.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gammage et al. (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: