Clinical characteristics of patients intolerant to VVIR pacing

Health-Related Quality of Life in Pacemaker Patients: A Single and Multidimensional Self-Rated Health Comparison Study

Since implantation of the first permanent pacemaker in 1958, significant advances have been made in pacemaker technology. To date, however, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a large pacemaker population has not been investigated. With dwindling clinical resources, it is important to study HRQoL in a pacemaker population in a reliable and straightforward manner. This study aimed to determine and compare single and multidimensional self-rated health (SRH) in a pacemaker population in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, pacemaker mode and symptoms. The findings showed that irrespective of whether the perspective was single or multidimensional, this Swedish pacemaker population (n=697) with a mean age of 76 years had an acceptable HRQoL. Men, aged 65-84 years, persons who were cohabiting, who had their own dwelling, who had a DDD or who had a pacemaker for <or=3 and 4-7 years experienced better HRQoL. Efforts need to be made for women, single persons, the elderly and retired persons. In conclusion, the SRH of a pacemaker population can be trustworthy established by means of a single-dimensional SRH question.

Dual-chamber pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia due to sick sinus syndrome without atrioventricular block: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Bradycardia [resting heart rate below 60 beats per minute (b.p.m.)] can be caused by conditions affecting the natural pacemakers of the heart, such as sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and atrioventricular (AV) blocks. People suffering from bradycardia may present with palpitations, exercise intolerance and fainting. The only effective treatment for patients suffering from symptomatic bradycardia is implantation of a permanent pacemaker.

OBJECTIVE

To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia in people with SSS and no evidence of AV block.

DATA SOURCES

All databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) were searched from inception to June 2014.

METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out in accordance with the general principles published by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating dual-chamber and single-chamber atrial pacemakers and economic evaluations were included. Pairwise meta-analysis was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed.

RESULTS

Of 493 references, six RCTs were included in the review. The results were predominantly influenced by the largest trial DANPACE. Dual-chamber pacing was associated with a statistically significant reduction in reoperation [odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.63] compared with single-chamber atrial pacing. The difference is primarily because of the development of AV block requiring upgrade to a dual-chamber device. The risk of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was also reduced with dual-chamber pacing compared with single-chamber atrial pacing (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96). No statistically significant difference was found between the pacing modes for mortality, heart failure, stroke, chronic atrial fibrillation or quality of life. However, the risk of developing heart failure may vary with age and device. The de novo economic model shows that dual-chamber pacemakers are more expensive and more effective than single-chamber atrial devices, resulting in a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6506. The ICER remains below £20,000 in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, structural sensitivity analysis and most scenario analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses. The risk of heart failure may have an impact on the decision to use dual-chamber or single-chamber atrial pacemakers. Results from an analysis based on age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years) and risk of heart failure indicate that dual-chamber pacemakers dominate single-chamber atrial pacemakers (i.e. are less expensive and more effective) in older patients, whereas dual-chamber pacemakers are dominated by (i.e. more expensive and less effective) single-chamber atrial pacemakers in younger patients. However, these results are based on a subgroup analysis and should be treated with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with SSS without evidence of impaired AV conduction, dual-chamber pacemakers appear to be cost-effective compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers. The risk of developing a complete AV block and the lack of tools to identify patients at high risk of developing the condition argue for the implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker programmed to minimise unnecessary ventricular pacing. However, considerations have to be made around the risk of developing heart failure, which may depend on age and device.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006708.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Pacing in sinus node disease to prevent atrial fibrillation

Cardiac pacing is the only effective treatment for patients with symptomatic sinus node disease (SND). The majority of patients with SND have several risk factors associated with development of atrial fibrillation (AF) at the time of pacemaker implantation and are therefore considered a high-risk population. Patients with SND can be treated with any kind of commercially available pacemaker pacing in the atrium, the ventricle or both. Pacing in SND can therefore alter atrial and ventricular conduction and atrioventricular coupling. These mechanisms can prevent or contribute to initiation and maintenance of AF during pacing. Different pacemaker modalities and algorithms have been tested to reduce AF in patients with SND in recent decades. To prevent AF in this population, it seems to be important to mimic the optimal electromechanical function of the heart, especially to preserve an optimal atrioventricular coupling.

[Sandwiched between the single- and triple-chamber ICD: do we still need the dual-chamber ICD?]

Since it has been shown that adverse events are more frequent with dual-compared to single-chamber ICDs in patients with heart failure, and since the importance of prevention of unnecessary right ventricular pacing and the success of biventricular pacing have been demonstrated in numerous studies, the need for dual-chamber ICD systems has to be reassessed. The development of these systems was accompanied by expectations of improved hemodynamics in patients with bradycardia, a reduced incidence of atrial fibrillation, inappropriate therapies, and bradycardia-associated ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Single-chamber ICDs should be used restrictively and with great caution in patients with (sinus-) bradycardia and heart failure, since a relevant proportion of these patients is at risk of hemodynamic deterioration. Even if the proportion of patients with proven pacemaker syndrome is so small that it does not reach the level of statistical significance in large studies, a small percentage of patients with hemodynamic deterioration due to VVI pacing is still clinically (and economically) intolerable. Since the development of bradycardia or symptomatic chronotropic incompetence (e.g., due to amiodarone) is difficult to predict, it seems reasonable to use the indication for dualchamber systems liberally. However, the systematic prevention of unnecessary right ventricular pacing is crucial if dual-chamber ICDs are used. If advanced tachycardia discrimination algorithms and careful, individual programming are used, dual-chamber ICDs are superior in the prevention of inappropriate therapies. Additionally, dualchannel electrograms allow a more reliable interpretation of stored tachycardia episodes. In summary, dual-chamber systems represent a valuable improvement of ICD therapy but require thorough programming to convey their advantage.

Modelling the health benefits and economic implications of implanting dual-chamber vs. single-chamber ventricular pacemakers in the UK

AIMS

To estimate the consequences of managing bradycardia due to sinoatrial node disease or atrioventricular block with dual-chamber vs. single-chamber ventricular pacemakers.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A discrete-event simulation was conducted to predict outcomes over 5 years. Patients could develop post-operative complications, clinically relevant pacemaker syndrome leading to replacement of single-chamber with dual-chamber, atrial fibrillation (AF; which if chronic might require anticoagulants) or stroke. Survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), complications, and associated direct medical costs were estimated (2003 British Pounds pounds sterling). Identical patients were simulated after receiving a single-chamber device or a more expensive dual-chamber pacemaker. Probabilities of conditions were obtained from clinical trials. Benefits were discounted at 1.5% and costs at 6%. Post-operative complications increased from 6.4% with single-chamber to 7.7% with dual-chamber but AF decreased (22 vs. 18%) as did clinically relevant pacemaker symptoms (16.8 vs. 0%). Approximately 4300 pounds sterling were accrued per patient over 5 years. Additional health benefits with dual-chamber are achieved at a mean net cost of 43 pounds sterling per patient, leading to 0.09 QALY with a cost-effectiveness ratio of 477 pounds sterling/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Implanting the costlier device increases the cost of the initial operation; however, this is expected to be offset by a reduction in costs associated with re-operations and AF.

Pacemaker selection: time for a rethinking of complex pacing systems?The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology

Evidence from randomized trials indicates that the clinical benefits of dual-chamber (DDD) pacing are modest: (i) no significant differences exist between physiological pacing and single-chamber pacing in mortality and stroke; (ii) ventricular desynchronization resulting from chronic right-ventricular pacing in DDD mode, induces a significantly increased incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure hospitalizations; (iii) AF pacing prevention and therapy algorithms have shown a modest to minimal or absent efficacy; (iv) the widespread use of physiological pacemakers is not an economically attractive strategy. Thus, these data provide a reliable body of evidence on which to make more rationale clinical decisions for individual patients and policy decisions for health costs saving. The cheaper single-chamber AAI(R) or VVI(R) has been shown to satisfy both conditions in most cases of sinus node disease and AV block.

Cardiac pacing: the state of the art

Permanent cardiac pacing remains the only effective treatment for chronic, symptomatic bradycardia. In recent years, the role of implantable pacing devices has expanded substantially. At the beginning of the 21st century, exciting developments in technology seem to happen at an exponential rate. Major advances have extended the use of pacing beyond the arrhythmia horizon. Such developments include dual-chamber pacers, rate-response algorithms, improved functionality of implantable cardioverter defibrillators, combinations of sensors for optimum physiological response, and advances in lead placement and extraction. Cardiac pacing is poised to help millions of patients worldwide to live better electrically. We review pacing studies of sick-sinus syndrome, neurocardiogenic syncope, hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy, and cardiac resynchronisation therapy, which are common or controversial indications for cardiac pacing. We also look at the benefits and complications of implantation in specific arrhythmias, suitability of different pacing modes, and the role of permanent pacing in the management of patients with heart failure.

Have the results of randomized clinical trials of pacing altered the practice of cardiac pacing?

Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for the evaluation of new therapies. However, in the early years of pacing, the observational benefits were so great and the lifesaving benefits to patients so readily obvious that randomized trials were not necessary to prove benefit. As the technology has matured, advances have become more evolutionary than revolutionary, and observational analyses are unable to provide convincing evidence of small-to-moderate benefits. Thus, randomized trials of sufficient sample size are necessary to reliably assess the small-to-moderate effects of advances such as dual-chamber pacing, rate modulation, and mode switching. It is only during the last decade, however, that the evidence base for pacing with regard to randomized trials has begun to emerge. It is unclear whether the emerging results of these clinical trials have affected the clinical practice of pacing.

Single versus dual chamber pacing in the young: noninvasive comparative evaluation of cardiac function

The advantages of atrial synchrony over asynchronous ventricular pacing remain unclear in the young, chronically right ventricular (RV) - paced patient. This is in contrast to the older patient with inherent diastolic dysfunction who has been shown to benefit from atrial synchrony with dual chamber (DDD,R/VDD), over single chamber rate response (VVI,R) ventricular pacing. The goal of this study was to noninvasively assess cardiac function in a group of young, RV-paced patients before and after establishment of atrial synchrony. Echocardiographic data were retrospectively analyzed from 10 patients with congenital or acquired complete AV block, who were VVI,R paced for 10.2 +/- 2 years (mean age at study 19.2 +/- 8.9 years), and were subsequently converted to DDD,R/VDD pacing (mean age at study 20.7 +/- 9.5 years). Paired t-test analysis of left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function during VVI,R versus DDD,R/VDD pacing did not result in any short-term difference in LV short axis fractional area of change or FAC (53% +/- 7.5% vs 56.8% +/- 8.7%) or mitral maximal velocity (E) normalized to mitral flow velocity time integral (VTI) (5.2/s +/- 1.5 vs 4.4/s +/- 1.5). A decrease in mitral flow E/A ratio was observed after short-term DDD,R/VDD pacing (2.2 +/- 0.5 vs 1.9 +/- 0.3). Atrial synchronous dual chamber pacing in young patients with complete AV block does not lead to any appreciable early change in global LV function over single-site RV pacing. Therefore, early establishment of atrial synchrony in the young asymptomatic VVI,R-paced patient with normal intrinsic ventricular function may not be warranted.

Pacemaker mode selection: the evidence from randomized trials

The evidence base for pacing, specifically with regards to outcome-based randomized trials, is only beginning to emerge. At present, the guidelines for pacing in sinus node dysfunction (SND), atrioventricular block (AVB), and vasovagal syncope are largely based on observational, not randomized studies. The findings from observational studies that physiological pacing was associated with reduced mortality, fewer strokes, less heart failure, and less AF when compared with ventricular pacing, were not uniformly supported by the early randomized trials of a relatively small sample size. Thus, it has become increasingly clear that large scale randomized trials are necessary to measure reliably the benefit, if any, of progressively more expensive and complex pacemakers. To provide reliable answers to these important questions, three large multicenter randomized trials in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States have been designed and conducted. The present review analyzed the results of completed randomized trials on pacemaker mode selection. To date, > 6,000 patients requiring permanent pacing to prevent bradycardia have been randomized; among these, dual chamber pacing did not prevent stroke or improve survival when compared with ventricular pacing. However, dual chamber pacing led to a moderate reduction of incident and chronic AF, reduced symptoms of heart failure in patients with SND, prevented pacemaker syndrome, and modestly improved quality-of-life. Further, a 5-10% reduction in mortality by atrial-based pacing cannot be excluded based on the results of the analyzed trials. The availability of data from ongoing randomized trials and their meta analysis should complete the totality of evidence during the next several years.

Ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing for sinus-node dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Dual-chamber (atrioventricular) and single-chamber (ventricular) pacing are alternative treatment approaches for sinus-node dysfunction that causes clinically significant bradycardia. However, it is unknown which type of pacing results in the better outcome.

METHODS

We randomly assigned a total of 2010 patients with sinus-node dysfunction to dual-chamber pacing (1014 patients) or ventricular pacing (996 patients) and followed them for a median of 33.1 months. The primary end point was death from any cause or nonfatal stroke. Secondary end points included the composite of death, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure; atrial fibrillation; heart-failure score; the pacemaker syndrome; and the quality of life.

RESULTS

The incidence of the primary end point did not differ significantly between the dual-chamber group (21.5 percent) and the ventricular-paced group (23.0 percent, P=0.48). In patients assigned to dual-chamber pacing, the risk of atrial fibrillation was lower (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.94; P=0.008), and heart-failure scores were better (P<0.001). The differences in the rates of hospitalization for heart failure and of death, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure were not significant in unadjusted analyses but became marginally significant in adjusted analyses. Dual-chamber pacing resulted in a small but measurable increase in the quality of life, as compared with ventricular pacing.

CONCLUSIONS

In sinus-node dysfunction, dual-chamber pacing does not improve stroke-free survival, as compared with ventricular pacing. However, dual-chamber pacing reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation, reduces signs and symptoms of heart failure, and slightly improves the quality of life. Overall, dual-chamber pacing offers significant improvement as compared with ventricular pacing.

Mortality and incidence of atrial fibrillation in paced patients

This review presents and discusses available data from randomized controlled trials on the prognosis of pacemaker patients, especially the incidences of atrial fibrillation (AF) and death, the impact of pacing mode selection, and the impact of AF on prognosis. The incidence of AF is several times higher in paced patients than in the nonpaced population. The annual incidences of AF and chronic AF are at least 5% and 3%, respectively, after pacemaker implantation. Mean lifetime cumulative incidences of AF and chronic AF can be estimated at approximately 30% to 40% and 20%, respectively. The most important predictors of AF are brady-tachy syndrome, sick sinus syndrome, and selection of VVI(R) pacing mode. The expected lifespan in paced patients is shorter than in the age-matched nonpaced population. One of the factors decreasing lifespan in paced patients most likely is the high incidence and prevalence of AF. In patients with sick sinus syndrome, VVI pacing significantly increases AF and mortality compared with AAI pacing. In a mixed population of patients with bradycardia, DDD(R) pacing causes less often than does VVI(R) pacing. Survival does not differ between these pacing modes within the first 3.5 years after pacemaker implantation. At the present time, AAI(R) should be the preferred pacing mode in patients with sick sinus syndrome, and DDD(R) should be used for other patients without chronic AF for prevention of AF. It is not clear whether prevention of AF will improve survival of paced patients.