Evaluation by Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test of DDDR Versus DDD Pacing.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Evaluation by Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test of DDDR Versus DDD Pacing.
Authors:	Capucci, Alessandro¹, Boriani, Giuseppe¹, Specchia, Salvatore¹, Marinelli, Massimo¹, Santarelli, Andrea¹, Magnani, Bruno¹
Source:	Pacing & Clinical Electrophysiology. Nov1992, Vol. 15 Issue 11, p1908-1913. 6p.
Subjects:	Cardiac pacing, Exercise tests, Heart rate monitoring, Heart diseases, Cardiac pacemakers, Cardiology
Abstract:	In eight patients (age 62 ± 6 years) a DDDR pacemaker was implanted for sick sinus syndrome (three cases) or second- and third-degree AV block (five cases). In five subjects chronotropic incompetence (maximal heart rate on effort < 110 beats/min) was present be/ore implantation. One month after implantation the patients were randomized to DDDR or DDD pacing for 3 weeks each, with subsequent crossover, and at the end of each period a symptom limited cardiopulmonary exercise test (25 watts/2 min) was performed and the patients were requested to fill a symptoms questionnaire. Results: DDDR pacing, compared to DDD, was associated with higher maximal heart rates (127 ± 20 vs 110 ± 27 beats/min, P < 0.02), higher VO2 max (25.4 ± 6.1 vs 21.5 ± 7.8 mL/kg/ per min, P < 0.03) and higher VO2 at the anaerobic threshold (20.3 ± 5.0 vs 15.8 ± 4.9 mL/kg per min, P < 0.03), without significant differences in mean exercise time (526 ± 193 vs 472 ± 216 sec, NS). The increase in VO2 max obtained in DDDR versus DDD was significantly related to the increase in maximal heart rate (r = 0.72, P < 0.05) and the increase in VO2 at the anaerobic threshold obtained in DDDR versus DDD was related to the increase in heart rate at the anaerobic threshold (r = 0.81, P < 0.02). In patients with chronotropic incompetence the improvement obtained in DDDR versus DDD was even more significant (VO2 max = 22.7 ± 5.9 vs 16.1 ± 4.4 ml/kg per min, P < 0.03; VO2 at the anaerobic threshold = 18.4 ± 5.1 vs 13.2 ± 2.8 mL/kg per min, P < 0.05; exercise time = 438 ± 132 vs 352 ± 150 sec, P < 0.02). In the population as a whole, no significant differences were found relative to subjective symptoms, meanwhile in patients with chronotropic incompetence a better subjective tolerance was apparent with DDDR than with DDD pacing. In conclusion, DDDR pacing induces a significant improvement of exercice capacity, in comparison to DDD pacing, related to the ability to reach higher heart rates during exercise. This phenomenon is particulary evident in patients with chronotropic incompetence in whom DDDR pacing also is subjectively better tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Pacing & Clinical Electrophysiology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Engineering Source

Description
Abstract:	In eight patients (age 62 ± 6 years) a DDDR pacemaker was implanted for sick sinus syndrome (three cases) or second- and third-degree AV block (five cases). In five subjects chronotropic incompetence (maximal heart rate on effort < 110 beats/min) was present be/ore implantation. One month after implantation the patients were randomized to DDDR or DDD pacing for 3 weeks each, with subsequent crossover, and at the end of each period a symptom limited cardiopulmonary exercise test (25 watts/2 min) was performed and the patients were requested to fill a symptoms questionnaire. Results: DDDR pacing, compared to DDD, was associated with higher maximal heart rates (127 ± 20 vs 110 ± 27 beats/min, P < 0.02), higher VO2 max (25.4 ± 6.1 vs 21.5 ± 7.8 mL/kg/ per min, P < 0.03) and higher VO2 at the anaerobic threshold (20.3 ± 5.0 vs 15.8 ± 4.9 mL/kg per min, P < 0.03), without significant differences in mean exercise time (526 ± 193 vs 472 ± 216 sec, NS). The increase in VO2 max obtained in DDDR versus DDD was significantly related to the increase in maximal heart rate (r = 0.72, P < 0.05) and the increase in VO2 at the anaerobic threshold obtained in DDDR versus DDD was related to the increase in heart rate at the anaerobic threshold (r = 0.81, P < 0.02). In patients with chronotropic incompetence the improvement obtained in DDDR versus DDD was even more significant (VO2 max = 22.7 ± 5.9 vs 16.1 ± 4.4 ml/kg per min, P < 0.03; VO2 at the anaerobic threshold = 18.4 ± 5.1 vs 13.2 ± 2.8 mL/kg per min, P < 0.05; exercise time = 438 ± 132 vs 352 ± 150 sec, P < 0.02). In the population as a whole, no significant differences were found relative to subjective symptoms, meanwhile in patients with chronotropic incompetence a better subjective tolerance was apparent with DDDR than with DDD pacing. In conclusion, DDDR pacing induces a significant improvement of exercice capacity, in comparison to DDD pacing, related to the ability to reach higher heart rates during exercise. This phenomenon is particulary evident in patients with chronotropic incompetence in whom DDDR pacing also is subjectively better tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	01478389
DOI:	10.1111/j.1540-8159.1992.tb02992.x