Physiologic cardiac pacing in patients with contemporary implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

• Published in: The American journal of cardiology Vol. 82; no. 1; pp. 66 - 71
• Main Authors: Iskos, Demosthenes, Fahy, Gerard J, Lurie, Keith G, Sakaguchi, Scott, Collins, Joanne M, Fetter, Joseph, Benditt, David G
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-07-1998; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial; Cardiology; Child; Child, Preschool; Defibrillators, Implantable; Female; Humans; Male; Medical equipment; Middle Aged
• ISSN: 0002-9149; 1879-1913
• DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9149(98)00242-2

Contemporary implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) incorporate single-chamber ventricular pacing capability. However, because poor ventricular function and/or congestive heart failure is common in the ICD population, the provision of more “physiologic” pacing modes has been receiving increased attention. To evaluate the potential impact of ICDs with physiologic pacing features, we assessed the frequency with which atrial-based pacing modes with or without rate responsiveness are currently used in ICD recipients. Further, we characterized those clinical variables at initial ICD implant that tended to be associated with subsequent need for physiologic pacing. Clinical findings were reviewed in 250 consecutive patients who received ICDs with VVI pacing capability at the University of Minnesota Cardiac Arrhythmia Center between January 1991 and February 1997. Adjunctive physiologic pacing was undertaken in 35 patients (14%): 13 before or at the same time as their ICD, and 22 within a mean of 2.5 years after initial ICD surgery. A history of atrial tachyarrhythmia before ICD implantation (p <0.0001) and treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs at the time of ICD surgery (p <0.05) were predictors of subsequent need for physiologic pacing. The type of presenting ventricular tachyarrhythmia and electrophysiologic parameters (such as the HV interval and the shortest atrial pacing cycle length associated with 1:1 anterograde atrioventricular conduction) were not associated with a subsequent decision to implant a physiologic pacing system. Thus, we conclude that despite the need to implant a second device, physiologic pacing is currently used in an important subset of ICD recipients. Further, certain clinical features at time of ICD implant appear to characterize these patients and may prove helpful in patient selection for the next generation “dual-chamber” ICD.