Francis, Dárrel P.

Background Constant flow and concentration CO2 has previously been efficacious in attenuating ventilatory oscillations in periodic breathing (PB) where oscillations in CO2 drive ventilatory oscillations. However, it has the undesirable effect of increasing end-tidal CO2, and ventilation. We tested, in a model of PB, a dynamic CO2 therapy that aims to attenuate pacemaker-induced ventilatory oscillations while minimising CO2 dose. Methods First, pacemakers were manipulated in 12 pacemaker recipients, 6 with heart failure (ejection fraction (EF)=23.7±7.3%) and 6 without heart failure, to experimentally induce PB. Second, we applied a real-time algorithm of pre-emptive dynamic exogenous CO2 administration, and tested different timings. Results We found that cardiac output alternation using pacemakers successfully induced PB. Dynamic CO2 therapy, when delivered coincident with hyperventilation, attenuated 57% of the experimentally induced oscillations in end-tidal CO2: SD/mean 0.06±0.01 untreated versus 0.04±0.01 with treatment (p<0.0001) and 0.02±0.01 in baseline non-modified breathing. This translated to a 56% reduction in induced ventilatory oscillations: SD/mean 0.19±0.09 untreated versus 0.14±0.06 with treatment (p=0.001) and 0.10±0.03 at baseline. Of note, end-tidal CO2 did not significantly rise when dynamic CO2 was applied to the model (4.84±0.47 vs 4.91± 0.45 kPa, p=0.08). Furthermore, mean ventilation was also not significantly increased by dynamic CO2 compared with untreated (7.8±1.2 vs 8.4±1.2 L/min, p=0.17). Conclusions Cardiac pacemaker manipulation can be used to induce PB experimentally. In this induced PB, delivering CO2 coincident with hyperventilation, ventilatory oscillations can be substantially attenuated without a significant increase in end-tidal CO2 or ventilation. Dynamic CO2 administration might be developed into a clinical treatment for PB. Trial Registration number ISRCTN29344450.

Abstract Aims Prognostic benefit from CRT compared with controls is well established. Symptomatic response rates, however, are controversial and have never been systematically evaluated with standard subtraction of control rates to establish the incremental symptomatic response effect of CRT pacing. Methods and results First, we identified 150 consecutive CRT papers and assessed researchers’ perceptions of the symptomatic response to CRT. The mean quoted response rate was 66%. Only 26 studies acknowledged the existence of response without the device. Secondly, we examined actual symptomatic response rates in the randomized trials (CARE-HF, COMPANION, CONTAK-CD, MIRACLE, MIRACLE-ICD, MIRACLE-ICD II, MUSTIC, and REVERSE) totalling 3904 patients. The NYHA status improved in 51% of those randomized to CRT vs. 35% of controls (incremental effect 16%). This incremental improvement was significantly greater in open studies (with no device for controls) than in blinded studies (control arm receiving a device but no CRT, such as a defibrillator or a CRT programmed off), 20% vs. 13%, P &lt; 0.001. Conclusions Quoting CRT responder rates in isolation without recognizing spontaneous ‘response’ is common but unwise. The incremental symptomatic response rate from CRT pacing is ∼16%, much lower than widely reported. This value is similar to that for drugs in heart failure and should not be considered disappointing: they both exert powerful prognostic benefits. For scientific purposes, e.g. to explore potential improvements, symptomatic benefit from CRT should be quantified, like all other effects, by comparison with a control.

Background— We postulated that the variability of the phase shift between blood pressure and heart rate fluctuation near the frequency of 0.10 Hz might be useful in assessing autonomic circulatory control. Methods and Results— We tested this hypothesis in 4 groups of subjects: 28 young, healthy individuals; 13 elderly healthy individuals; 25 patients with coronary heart disease; and 19 patients with a planned or implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD recipients). Data from 5 minutes of free breathing and at 2 different, controlled breathing frequencies (0.10 and 0.33 Hz) were used. Clear differences ( P <0.001) in variability of phase were evident between the ICD recipients and all other groups. Furthermore, at a breathing frequency of 0.10 Hz, differences in baroreflex sensitivity ( P <0.01) also became evident, even though these differences were not apparent at the 0.33-Hz breathing frequency. Conclusions— The frequency of 0.10 Hz represents a useful and potentially important one for controlled breathing, at which differences in blood pressure–RR interactions become evident. These interactions, whether computed as a variability of phase to define stability of the blood pressure–heart rate interaction or defined as the baroreflex sensitivity to define the gain in heart rate response to blood pressure changes, are significantly different in patients at risk for sudden arrhythmic death. In young versus older healthy individuals, only baroreflex gain is different, with the variability of phase being similar in both groups. These measurements of short-term circulatory control might help in risk stratification for sudden cardiac death.