[Benefits and limits of single chamber atrial pacing with adaptive rate].
Twelve patients with isolated symptomatic sinus node dysfunction or bradycardia-tachycardia syndrome with atrial chronotropic incompetence during exercise testing were managed by single chamber rate responsive atrial pacing (AAIR) when AV conduction was normal, or by a dual chamber DDDR pacemaker programmed in the AAIR mode when AV conduction was abnormal, and followed up for 12.5 +/- 9.8 months. The patients were assessed clinically, by 3 monthly ECG and Holter recordings and comparative exercise tests in AAI and AAIR modes at the 6th month. One patient with an AAIR system was excluded at M21 because of symptomatic AV block requiring reimplantation of a DDD pacemaker. Ten of the 11 remaining patients are asymptomatic and have an excellent quality of life; one patient had invalidating symptoms on exercise attributed to the "AAIR pacemaker syndrome" which were corrected by reprogramming the pacemaker and modifying the medical therapy. The comparative exercise stress tests showed a significantly higher heart rate in the AAIR mode compared to AAI pacing at the initial and intermediate exercise levels (30 to 70 W); on the other hand, the heart rates were not significantly different at the highest exercise levels although in the AAI mode, the terminal acceleration sometimes occurred in junctional rhythm whereas it was usually an atrial paced rhythm in the AAIR mode. The total duration of exercise was longer in the AAIR mode (+22%; p less than 0.01) when the 8/11 patients with chronotropic incompetence during the baseline study were considered. The spike-R interval adapted normally to exercise in only one case: in the other patients, the interval remained constant or, in the worst of cases (N = 4), it increased paradoxically, to result in the "AAIR pacemaker syndrome": this phenomenon is observed mainly in patients treated by antiarrhythmics and/or betablockers. The AAIR mode would therefore seem to be a simple, effective and reliable method of treating patients with sinus node dysfunction and chronotropic incompetence; however, the failure of adaptation of the PR interval is a real limitation to its use and may constitute an argument in favour of the choice of a DDR pacemaker in these patients.
Pouillot
C
C
Service de cardiologie A, Hôtel-Dieu, CHR, Rennes.
Mabo
P
P
Lelong
B
B
Cazeau
S
S
Paillard
F
F
de Place
C
C
Daubert
J C
JC
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000889:Anti-Arrhythmia Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001145:Arrhythmias, Cardiac / Q000628:therapy*; D002304:Cardiac Pacing, Artificial / Q000379:methods*; D004562:Electrocardiography; D005080:Exercise Test; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006325:Heart Atria; D006339:Heart Rate; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010138:Pacemaker, Artificial; D011788:Quality of Life
D000889:Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
Bénéfices et limites de la stimulation monochambre auriculaire à fréquence asservie.