Does dual chamber pacing (DDD) improve symptoms, exercise performance, and neuroendocrine variables compared to ventricular rate adaptive pacing (VVIR) in patients with complete heart block?
In patients with complete heart block, DDD pacing did not significantly improve symptoms or maximal exercise performance compared to VVIR pacing, although it did restore resting atrial natriuretic peptide levels to normal.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of dual chamber pacing (DDD) and ventricular rate adaptive pacing (activity sensing) (VVIR) in patients with complete heart block. DESIGN: Double blind crossover comparison with one month in each pacing mode. PATIENTS: 10 consecutive patients aged 23-74 presenting with complete anterograde atrioventricular block at rest and on exercise and with an intact atrial rate response received Synergyst I (Medtronic) pacemakers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptom scores, maximal exercise performance on a treadmill, and the plasma concentrations of atrial natriuretic peptide, adrenaline, and noradrenaline. RESULTS: No significant differences were identified between pacing modes in symptom scores for dyspnoea, fatigue, and mood disturbance; exercise time; and maximal oxygen consumption. One patient with intact ventriculoatrial conduction developed pacemaker syndrome during VVIR pacing. Resting plasma concentrations of atrial natriuretic peptide were raised in complete heart block and were restored to normal by DDD pacing but not by VVIR pacing. Resting plasma catecholamine concentrations were normal in complete heart block and in both pacing modes. During exercise the increase in the concentrations of all three hormones was similar in both pacing modes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with complete anterograde and retrograde atrioventricular block, symptoms and maximal exercise performance were no better during DDD than during VVIR pacing.
Oldroyd et al. (1991) studied this question.