Hargreaves M R, Channon K M, Cripps T R, Gardner M, Ormerod O J
Cardiac Department, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford.
Br Heart J. 1995 Oct;74(4):397-402. doi: 10.1136/hrt.74.4.397.
To compare symptoms and exercise tolerance during dual chamber universal (DDD) and ventricular rate response (VVIR) pacing in elderly (> or = 75) patients.
Randomised, double blind, crossover study.
Regional cardiac department.
Twenty elderly patients (mean age 80.5 (1) years) with high grade atrioventricular block and sinus rhythm. Patients with pre-existing risk factors for the pacemaker syndrome and chronotropic incompetence were excluded.
After four weeks of VVI pacing following pacemaker implantation, patients underwent consecutive two week periods of VVIR and DDD pacing.
Patient preference, symptom scores, "daily activity exercises," and perceived level of exercise (Borg score).
Eleven patients preferred DDD mode to either VVI or VVIR mode. Mean (SE) total symptom scores during VVI, VVIR, and DDD pacing were 5.9 (1.1), 6.1 (1.0), and 3.5 (0.9) respectively (P < 0.01). The corresponding mean (SE) pacemaker syndrome symptom scores were 4.8 (0.7), 5.2 (0.8), and 2.9 (0.8) (P < 0.05). Symptom scores during VVI and VVIR pacing were not significantly different. Exercise performance and Borg scores were significantly worse during VVI pacing compared with VVIR or DDD pacing but did not significantly differ between VVIR and DDD modes.
In active elderly patients with complete heart block both DDD and VVIR pacing are associated with improved exercise performance compared with fixed rate VVI pacing. The convenience and reduced cost of VVIR systems, however, may be offset by a higher incidence of the pacemaker syndrome. In elderly patients with complete heart block VVIR pacing results in suboptimal symptomatic benefit and should not be used instead of DDD pacing.
比较双腔通用(DDD)起搏和心室率应答(VVIR)起搏在老年(≥75岁)患者中的症状及运动耐量。
随机、双盲、交叉研究。
地区心脏科。
20例老年患者(平均年龄80.5(1)岁),患有高度房室传导阻滞及窦性心律。排除存在起搏器综合征及变时性功能不全既往危险因素的患者。
起搏器植入后VVI起搏4周后,患者依次接受为期2周的VVIR起搏和DDD起搏。
患者偏好、症状评分、“日常活动锻炼”及主观运动水平(Borg评分)。
11例患者更倾向于DDD模式而非VVI或VVIR模式。VVI、VVIR和DDD起搏期间的平均(标准误)总症状评分分别为5.9(1.1)、6.1(1.0)和3.5(0.9)(P<0.01)。相应的平均(标准误)起搏器综合征症状评分分别为4.8(0.7)、5.2(0.8)和2.9(0.8)(P<0.05)。VVI和VVIR起搏期间的症状评分无显著差异。与VVIR或DDD起搏相比,VVI起搏期间的运动表现和Borg评分显著更差,但VVIR和DDD模式之间无显著差异。
在患有完全性心脏传导阻滞的活跃老年患者中,与固定频率VVI起搏相比,DDD和VVIR起搏均与运动表现改善相关。然而,VVIR系统的便利性和较低成本可能会被起搏器综合征的较高发生率所抵消。在患有完全性心脏传导阻滞的老年患者中,VVIR起搏导致的症状改善效果欠佳,不应替代DDD起搏使用。