Rea, Robert

Importance Reduced heart rate during exercise is common and associated with impaired aerobic capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but it remains unknown if restoring exertional heart rate through atrial pacing would be beneficial. Objective To determine if implanting and programming a pacemaker for rate-adaptive atrial pacing would improve exercise performance in patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence. Design, Setting, and Participants Single-center, double-blind, randomized, crossover trial testing the effects of rate-adaptive atrial pacing in patients with symptomatic HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence at a tertiary referral center (Mayo Clinic) in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients were recruited between 2014 and 2022 with 16-week follow-up (last date of follow-up, May 9, 2022). Cardiac output during exercise was measured by the acetylene rebreathe technique. Interventions A total of 32 patients were recruited; of these, 29 underwent pacemaker implantation and were randomized to atrial rate responsive pacing or no pacing first for 4 weeks, followed by a 4-week washout period and then crossover for an additional 4 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was oxygen consumption (V̇ o 2 ) at anaerobic threshold (V̇ o 2,AT ); secondary end points were peak V̇ o 2 , ventilatory efficiency (V̇ e /V̇ co 2 slope), patient-reported health status by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS), and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. Results Of the 29 patients randomized, the mean age was 66 years (SD, 9.7) and 13 (45%) were women. In the absence of pacing, peak V̇ o 2 and V̇ o 2 at anaerobic threshold (V̇ o 2,AT ) were both correlated with peak exercise heart rate ( r = 0.46-0.51, P < .02 for both). Pacing increased heart rate during low-level and peak exercise (16/min [95% CI, 10 to 23], P < .001; 14/min [95% CI, 7 to 21], P < .001), but there was no significant change in V̇ o 2,AT (pacing off, 10.4 [SD, 2.9] mL/kg/min; pacing on, 10.7 [SD, 2.6] mL/kg/min; absolute difference, 0.3 [95% CI, −0.5 to 1.0] mL/kg/min; P = .46), peak V̇ o 2 , minute ventilation (V̇ e) /carbon dioxide production (V̇ co 2 ) slope, KCCQ-OSS, or NT-proBNP level. Despite the increase in heart rate, atrial pacing had no significant effect on cardiac output with exercise, owing to a decrease in stroke volume (−24 mL [95% CI, −43 to −5 mL]; P = .02). Adverse events judged to be related to the pacemaker device were observed in 6 of 29 participants (21%). Conclusions and Relevance In patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence, implantation of a pacemaker to enhance exercise heart rate did not result in an improvement in exercise capacity and was associated with increased adverse events. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02145351

AbstractObjectiveThis study sought to determine if single‐chamber operation and/or loss of rate response (RR) during elective replacement indicator (ERI) in patients with dual‐chamber pacemakers lead to increased symptom burden, healthcare utilization, and atrial fibrillation (AF).BackgroundDual‐chamber pacemakers often change from dual‐ to single‐chamber pacing mode and/or lose RR functionality at ERI to preserve battery. Single‐chamber pacing increases the incidence of heart failure, AF, and pacemaker syndrome suggesting these changes may be deleterious.MethodsA retrospective analysis of 700 patients was completed. Three comparisons were analyzed: Comparison 1: mode change and RR loss versus no change; Comparison 2: RR loss only versus no change; Comparison 3: mode change only versus no change (in patients with no RR programmed at baseline).ResultsIn Comparison 1, 121 (46%) patients with setting changes experienced symptoms (most often dyspnea and fatigue/exercise intolerance) versus 3 (4%) without setting changes (p < .0001). Similar results were noted in Comparisons 2 and 3 (p = .0016 and p = .0001, respectively). In Comparison 1, patients with setting change sought provider contact more than patients without setting changes (p = .0001). A significant difference was not noted in Comparison 2 or 3. Overall 14 (2%) patients were hospitalized, all of whom had setting changes.ConclusionsSetting changes at ERI including a change from dual‐ to single‐chamber pacing and/or loss of RR results in a significantly increased symptom burden and increased healthcare utilization.