Lack of physiological adaptation of the atrioventricular interval to heart rate in patients chronically paced in the AAIR mode.

Seventeen consecutive patients, aged 56 +/- 12, were chronically paced in the AAIR mode for a symptomatic sinus node disease with atrial chronotropic incompetence defined by a peak exercise heart rate (HR) less than 75% of the maximal predicted heart rate (MPHR) mean = 65 +/- 10%). Sensors used were activity sensing (n = 7), minute ventilation (n = 6), or respiratory rate (n = 4). Basic pacing rate was programmed at 71 +/- 5 beats/min and the maximal sensor rate at approximately 85% MPHR (143 +/- 10); other sensor parameters were programmed individually. Six months after implant, two standardized and symptom limited exercise tests were performed in random order, AAI and AAIR modes, respectively. AAIR pacing significantly improved peak exercise HR (139 +/- 14 vs 112 +/- 30 beats/min; P less than 0.01), maximal sustained workload (132 +/- 42 vs 110 +/- 38 watts; P less than 0.02), and total exercise duration (724 +/- 299 vs 594 +/- 245 sec; p less than 0.02) compared to the AAI mode. In all 17 patients, HR was continuously sensor driven in the AAIR mode, making it possible to precisely study the adaptation of the stimulus-R interval and of the stimulus-R:RR ratio during exercise. Six patients normally adapted with a progressive shortening. Six others did not adapt at all without any variation of interval. Five patients paradoxically increased their stimulus-R interval (286 +/- 10 msec at peak E vs 220 +/- 19 msec at rest) and their stimulus-R:RR ratio (67 +/- 20% vs 29 +/- 4%), producing P waves occurring immediately after, or even within the R wave of the preceding cycle; two patients complained of severe exercise related symptoms corresponding to the so-called "AAIR pacemaker syndrome." The principal factors involved in the nonadaptation of AV interval to HR were related to the patient (organic heart disease, with the particular problem of the denervated heart; the bradytachy syndrome; and the use of drugs, especially beta blockers and Class I antiarrhythmic drugs) or to the pacemaker ("overstimulation" phenomenon). These observations constitute an additional argument for wider indications of implanting DDDR units in these patients.