Key result
Biventricular pacing increases SDNN by ~34% from baseline in chronic heart failure.
Why the study?
Biventricular pacing is emerging as a long-term therapy for symptomatic heart failure, and its effect on heart rate variability as a predictive tool needed assessment.
Biventricular pacing was associated with higher HRV in this small cohort; hypothesis-generating for prognostic benefit, larger trials needed.
BACKGROUND: Biventricular pacing is emerging as a long-term therapy for symptomatic heart failure. Analysis of heart rate variability (HRV) has become an important predictive tool in this syndrome. AIM OF THE STUDY: To assess whether chronic resynchronization therapy can affect HRV in patients with heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirteen patients with heart failure were studied (mean age+/-1 S.E. 65+/-2.2 years, QRS 195+/-5.3 ms, NYHA class 3.2+/-0.1, LVEF 21+/-1.7%). The protocol included a preliminary no pacing period for 1 month following device implantation. Twenty-four hour Holter ECG recordings were performed at the end of this period (baseline) and after 3 months of biventricular stimulation (VDD mode). Prior to and following pacing patients underwent NYHA class evaluation, 6-min walk test, Quality of Life Assessment and a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Biventricular pacing improved functional class (P<0.0001) and Quality of life (P<0.0001), increased 6-min walk distance, (P=0.008) and exercise duration (P<0.0001) but had no significant effect on peak exercise VO(2). Resynchronization therapy increased mean 24-h RR (922+/-58 vs. 809+/-41 ms at baseline, P=0.006), SDNN (111+/-11 vs. 83+/-8 ms, P=0.003), SDNN-I (56+/-10 vs. 40+/-5 ms, P=0.02), rMSSD (66+/-14 vs. 41+/-8 ms, P=0.003), Total Power (5724+/-1875 vs. 2074+/-553 ms(2), P=0.03), Ultra Low Frequency Power (1969+/-789 vs. 653+/-405 ms(2), P=0.03) and Very Low Frequency Power (2407+/-561 vs. 902+/-155 ms(2), P=0.004). CONCLUSION: Biventricular pacing in heart failure improves autonomic function by increasing HRV. This may have important prognostic implications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
LIVANIS et al. (2003) studied Chronic Heart Failure (n=13). Biventricular pacing vs. Baseline (no pacing) was evaluated on Heart rate variability (SDNN) (p=0.003). Biventricular pacing significantly increased heart rate variability, including SDNN (111 vs 83 ms, P=0.003), compared to baseline in patients with chronic heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: