AAI pacing mode: when is it indicated and how should it be achieved?

Case Report: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with recurrent episodes of ventricular fibrillation and concurrent sinus arrest

Background

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a serious hereditary cardiomyopathy. It is characterized morphologically by an increased left ventricular wall thickness and mass and functionally by enhanced global chamber function and myocellular contractility, diastolic dysfunction, and myocardial fibrosis development. Typically, patients with HCM experience atrial fibrillation (AF), syncope, and ventricular fibrillation (VF), causing severe symptoms and cardiac arrest. In contrast, sinoatrial node (SAN) arrest in the setting of HCM is uncommon. In particular, during VF, it has not been described so far.

Case summary

In this study, we report an 18-year-old woman patient with sudden cardiac arrest due to VF and successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation as the first clinical manifestation of non-obstructive HCM. Subsequently, a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was implanted for secondary VF prophylaxis. However, additional episodes of VF occurred. During these, device interrogation revealed a combined occurrence of VF, bradycardia, and SAN arrest, requiring a device exchange into a dual-chamber ICD. A heterozygous, pathogenic variant of the MYH7 gene (c.2155C>T; p.Arg719Trp) was identified as causative for HCM.

Discussion

First published in 1994, the particular MYH7 variant (p.Arg719Trp) was described in HCM patients with a high incidence of premature cardiac death and a reduced life expectancy. Electrophysiological studies on HCM patients are mainly performed to treat AF and ventricular tachycardia. Further extraordinary arrhythmic phenotypes were reported only in a few HCM patients. Taken together, the present case with documented co-existing VF and SAN arrest is rare and also emphasizes addressing the presence of SAN arrest (in particular, during VF episodes) in HCM patients when a distinct ICD device is considered for implantation.

Safety and efficacy of AAIR pacing in selected patients with sick sinus syndrome

BACKGROUND

The DANPACE study suggested implanting dual-pacing dual-sensing dual-response rate-adaptive (DDDR) pacemakers in patients with sick sinus syndrome, even though 90.7% of their atrial-pacing atrial-sensing inhibited-response rate-adaptive (AAIR) group did not require upgrade. Most centers implant DDDR pacemakers due to risk of future atrioventricular (AV) block. Given that AAIR pacemakers are less expensive, have one less lead with potentially one less point of complication, we question whether DDDR pacemakers are superior to AAIR pacemakers. We aim to describe long-term outcomes of AAIR implants.

METHODS

Patients presenting to the Grey Nuns Hospital in Edmonton, Canada from 1990 to 2012 with sick sinus syndrome without AV block had AAIR pacemakers implanted. Outcomes that were measured over the follow-up time included need for ventricular lead reoperation, incidence of AV block and incidence of sudden cardiac death from AV block.

RESULTS

During this period, 330 patients presented with sick sinus syndrome. Eighty-seven (26.4%) patients met criteria for and received AAIR pacemakers. Seventy-eight (91.8%) did not require upgrade over mean follow-up of 10.6 ± 0.6 years. Amongst this group, 31 patients (39.7%) were alive, whereas 47 (60.3%) were deceased at end of follow-up due to other comorbidities. No sudden deaths were attributable to AV block. Only 7 patients (8.2%) required ventricular lead reoperation: 2 (2.4%) presented urgently with symptomatic AV block; 3 (3.5%) had atrial fibrillation requiring beta-blockade; 1 (1.2%) had atrial lead dislodgment; and 1 (1.2%) was electively upgraded at battery end-of-life.

CONCLUSIONS

This study looks at safety of AAIR pacemakers with only 2.4% of patients developing AV block requiring urgent upgrade. Approximately 91.8% of patients remained with their original AAIR pacemakers (mean follow-up 10.6 vs 5.4 years in DANPACE). Our findings are similar to the DANPACE study but our conclusions are different as we believe AAIR pacing should be considered for selected patients with sick sinus syndrome without AV block.

Upgrade to biventricular pacing in patients with pacing-induced heart failure: can resynchronization do the trick?

Dyssynchrony imposed on ventricular function by right ventricular (RV) apical pacing may lead in some cases to worsening or appearance of heart failure (HF) symptoms. This is a result of an altered pattern of activation, leading to several histological and functional adjustments of the left ventricle, including inhomogeneous thickening of the ventricular myocardium and myofibrillar disarray, fibrosis, disturbances in ion-handling protein expression, myocardial perfusion defects, alterations in sympathetic tone and mitral regurgitation. Studies of mid- and long-term effects of RV apical pacing on left ventricular (LV) function have demonstrated a progressive decline in ejection fraction and other indices of LV functional competence. Upgrading RV pacing systems to biventricular resynchronization modalities is a theoretically promising option for paced patients with worsening HF. The potentially favourable effect of upgrading on LV functional indices and patient clinical status has been demonstrated in few, non-randomized trials. Apart from the scantiness of existing clinical data, issues concerning technical aspects of the procedure and selection of eligible patients are raised. Is pacing-induced dyssynchrony equivalent to the indigenous dyssynchrony in unpaced patients with HF? What selection criteria should be applied in order to identify potential responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy in this patient population? Answers to these and more questions are still lacking.