After implantation of a permanent pacemaker, patients may experience severe symptoms of dyspnea, palpitations, malaise, and syncope resulting from pacemaker syndrome.  Although pacemaker syndrome is most often ascribed to the loss of atrioventricular (A-V) synchrony, more recent data may also implicate left ventricular dysynchrony caused by right ventricular pacing.  Previous studies have not shown reductions in mortality or stroke with rate-modulated dual-chamber (DDDR) pacing as compared to ventricular-based (VVI) pacing. The benefits in A-V sequential pacing with the DDDR mode are likely mitigated by the interventricular (V-V) dysynchrony imposed by the high percentage of ventricular pacing commonly seen in the DDDR mode.  Programming DDDR pacemakers to encourage intrinsic A-V conduction and reduce right ventricular pacing will likely decrease heart failure and pacemaker syndrome.  Studies are currently ongoing to address these questions

Estes, Mark NA III

Farmer, Michael D

Link, Mark S

English

CogPrints Cognitive Sciences Eprint Archive

New Concepts in Pacemaker Syndrome

Cognitive Sciences ePrint Archive

 
www.ipej.org 195
Review Article 
New Concepts in Pacemaker Syndrome
D. Michael Farmer, MD, N. A. Mark Estes, III, MD, Mark S. Link, MD
Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston,
Massachusetts
Address for Correspondence:  Mark S.  Link,  NEMC Box #197, Tufts-New England Medical
Center
750 Washington Street, Boston, MA  02111. Email: Mlink@tufts-nemc.org
Abstract
            After implantation of a permanent pacemaker, patients may experience severe symptoms
of dyspnea, palpitations, malaise, and syncope resulting from pacemaker syndrome.  Although
pacemaker syndrome is  most  often ascribed to the loss of atrioventricular (A-V) synchrony,
more recent data may also implicate left  ventricular dysynchrony caused by right ventricular
pacing.  Previous studies have not shown reductions in mortality or stroke with rate-modulated
dual-chamber (DDDR) pacing as compared to ventricular-based (VVI) pacing. The benefits in
A-V sequential pacing with the DDDR mode are likely mitigated by the interventricular (V-V)
dysynchrony imposed by the high percentage of ventricular pacing commonly seen in the DDDR
mode.  Programming DDDR pacemakers  to  encourage  intrinsic  A-V conduction  and reduce
right ventricular pacing will likely decrease heart failure and pacemaker syndrome.  Studies are
currently ongoing to address these questions.
Keywords: VVI  =  ventricular-based,  VVIR  =  rate  modulated  ventricular-based,  A-V  =
atrioventricular, V-V = interventricular, V-A = ventricular-atrial,  LBBB = left bundle branch
block, LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction, DDDR = rate modulated dual-chamber, SND =
sinus  node  dysfunction,  AAI  =  single-chamber  atrial,  AF  =  atrial  fibrillation,  LV  =  left
ventricular, RV= right ventricular
Introduction
            
            Pacemaker syndrome consists of the cardiovascular signs and symptoms of heart failure
and hypotension induced by right ventricular (RV) pacing.  The reported incidence of pacemaker
syndrome likely approaches 20% in rate modulated ventricular-based (VVIR) pacing1. Over the
last three decades the understanding of pacemaker syndrome has evolved.  Initially described as
only the sequela of A-V dysynchrony, pacemaker syndrome may be highly influenced by RV-left
ventricular (LV) dysynchrony as well.  The intricate interplay of these two factors along with
autonomic  and  neurohormonal  changes  cause  the  compilation  of  symptoms  known  as  the
pacemaker syndrome.
Pacemaker Syndrome
            Pacemaker syndrome was first  described in 1969 by Mitsui et  al.  as a collection of
symptoms associated with right ventricular pacing2.   Since its first discovery, there have been
Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal (ISSN 0972-6292), 4(4): 195-200 (2004)
D. Michael Farmer, N.A. Mark Estes, III, Mark S. Link,                                              196
“New Concepts in Pacemaker Syndrome”
many definitions  of pacemaker  syndrome,  and the understanding of the cause of pacemaker
syndrome is still under investigation.  In a general sense, pacemaker syndrome can be defined as
the symptoms associated with right ventricular pacing relieved with the return of A-V and V-V
synchrony.
            The  symptoms  of  pacemaker  syndrome included  dyspnea  on  exertion,  paroxysmal
nocturnal dyspnea, orthopnea,  hypotension, pre-syncope,  and even syncope3,4,5.  Heart  failure
signs include elevated neck veins,  rales,  and  pedal  edema.  Physical  exam can often  reveal
cannon A-waves.  This sign occurs  secondary to ventricular-atrial  (V-A) conduction and the
contraction of the atria against closed A-V valves.  Although relatively uncommon, syncope has
been  attributed  to  pacemaker  syndrome.  Syncope is  usually  associated  with  systolic  blood
pressure declines of greater than 20 mm Hg that can occur with the onset of pacing.  Additional
symptoms attributed to pacemaker syndrome include easy fatigability, malaise, headache, and
the sensation of fullness and pulsations in the head and neck.  Pacemaker syndrome is most
severe when intact V-A conduction is present6.  The elevated venous pressures associated with
the contraction against closed A-V valves causes a vagal afferent response resulting in peripheral
vasodilation and hypotension.
Incidence
            The reported incidence of pacemaker syndrome has ranged from 2%7 to 83%8.  The wide
range of reported incidence is likely attributable to two factors.  The first is the criteria used to
define  pacemaker  syndrome.  In  the  Pacemaker  Selection  in  the  Elderly  (PASE)  study,
pacemaker syndrome was defined as symptoms severe enough to warrant reprogramming from
ventricular to dual-chamber pacing9.   The Mode Selection Trial (MOST) investigators defined
pacemaker syndrome as occurring if  either one of two different  criteria occurred1.  The first
criteria was new or worsened dyspnea, orthopnea, elevated jugular venous pressure, rales, and
edema with ventricular (VA) conduction during ventricular pacing.  The second criteria was
symptoms of  dizziness,  weakness,  presyncope,  or  syncope,  and a  >20 mm Hg reduction of
systolic blood pressure when the patient had VVIR pacing compared with atrial pacing or sinus
rhythm.   The second factor in the wide range of reported incidence of pacemaker syndrome is
the therapy used to resolve that diagnosis.   When surgical revision is required to upgrade a
patient from VVIR pacing, the incidence of pacemaker syndrome has been low.  In the Canadian
Trial of Physiologic Pacing (CTTOP), surgical revision was required for the change from VVIR
to dual chamber pacing, and the incidence of pacemaker syndrome was reported to be 2.7% at
three  years10.  In  other  pacemaker  mode  trials,  patients  were  implanted  with  dual  chamber
devices  and  then  either  programmed to  VVIR or  DDDR pacing.  In these  studies,  patients
complaining of symptoms consistent  with pacemaker  syndrome could be easily upgraded to
DDDR mode by simple pacemaker reprogramming.  In the PASE and MOST studies  in which
devices  could  be  reprogrammed  from VVIR to  DDDR mode,  the  incidence  of  pacemaker
syndrome was higher  than in  those studies  that  required an invasive intervention  to  change
pacing mode9,11.  
A-V vs. V-V dysynchrony
            The majority of the symptoms of pacemaker syndrome are likely attributable to the
reduction in cardiac output that is associated with right ventricular pacing3,4,5.  Several studies
have  demonstrated  the  hemodynamic  superiority  and  increase  in  cardiac  output  of  A-V
sequential  pacing  over  ventricular  pacing12.  Other  studies  have  shown  that  A-V  and  V-V
synchrony are independent contributors to the hemodynamic ramifications of right ventricular
pacing13,14.  Right  ventricular  pacing  with  or  without  A-V synchrony induces  a  physiologic
contraction similar to that caused by left bundle branch block (LBBB).  The effects of LBBB
have been well studied.  LBBB leads to an asynchronous ventricular contraction leading to D.
Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal (ISSN 0972-6292), 4(4): 195-200 (2004)
Michael Farmer, N.A. Mark Estes, III, Mark S. Link,                                                197
“New Concepts in Pacemaker Syndrome”
altered  diastolic  filling  time,  increase  in  mitral  regurgitation,  as  well  as  a  reduction  in  left
ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)15,16,17.  Thus, the reduction in cardiac output and symptoms
associated with pacemaker syndrome are likely secondary to the loss of both A-V and V-V
synchrony that is associated with right ventricular apical pacing18.   
“Physiologic” vs. Ventricular pacing Trials
            The  physiologic  benefits  of  A-V sequential  have  caused  DDDR pacing to  become
common practice in most patients with sinus node dysfunction (SND).  The results of completed
randomized  clinical  trials  of  pacemaker  mode  selection  have  been  somewhat  conflicting.  
Overall,  most  trials  have  not  shown  reduction  in  heart  failure,  reduction  in  mortality,  or
improvement in quality of life with A-V sequential pacing (Table 1).  
Table 1: Clinical Trials of Pacemaker Mode Selection
 
            In the first of such trials, Anderson et al. compared single-chamber atrial (AAI) with VVI
pacing in 225 patients with SND, normal A-V conduction, and a narrow QRS who had standard
pacing  indications7.  The  primary  endpoints  were  frequency  of  atrial  fibrillation  (AF)  and
thromboembolic events.  The original study follow-up was 3.3 years with a subsequent analysis
at 5.5 years.  Long term follow-up demonstrated persistent reduction in the primary endpoints of
AF, thromboembolic events, chronic AF, and all cause mortality in the AAI paced group.  At
longer  follow-up,  the  VVI  group  had  an  increased  incidence  of  heart  failure,  worsening
echocardiographic measurements of LV function,  and increase in all-cause mortality.  These
long-term  results  have  not  been  reproduced  by  any  other  prospective,  randomized  trial
comparing  solely  atrial-based  to  ventricular-based  pacing,  although  the  pacing  mode  in  D.
Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal (ISSN 0972-6292), 4(4): 195-200 (2004)
Michael Farmer, N.A. Mark Estes, III, Mark S. Link,                                                198
“New Concepts in Pacemaker Syndrome”
subsequent trials was mainly DDDR.
            In the PASE study, 407 patients  older  than 65 years of age, in  sinus rhythm, who
required  a  pacemaker  for  bradycardia,  were  randomized  to  VVIR or  DDDR pacing9.  The
primary end point was quality-of life.  Secondary endpoints included death from all causes, first
nonfatal stroke or death, first hospitalization for heart failure, development of atrial fibrillation,
and the development  of pacemaker syndrome.  At quality of life  evaluations at  3,  9 and 18
months, there were no differences between the two pacing modes.  There was a 26% crossover
rate due to the development of pacemaker syndrome. No differences in clinical outcomes were
observed.  There were some trends that showed benefit in clinical outcomes in the DDDR group,
especially in the subset of patients with SND, but none were of statistical significance.
            As a result of the conflicting data in the Anderson et al. trial and the PASE study, two
larger trials in pacemaker mode selection were performed.  In the Canadian Trial of Physiologic
Pacing  (CTOPP)  trial,  2568  patients  with  symptomatic  bradycardia  requiring  pacing  were
randomized to atrial-based (AAI, AAIR, DDD, or DDDR) or ventricular pacing (VVI or VVIR)
10.  AAI and AAIR combined for only 5% of the patients assigned to the atrial-based group.  The
remaining 95% in the atrial-based group were either DDD or DDDR paced.  The combined
endpoint  of  stroke  or  death  due  to  cardiovascular  causes  after  a  3-year  follow-up  was  not
different  between  the  two  groups.  The  secondary  endpoints  of  AF  and  chronic  AF  were
observed less commonly in the atrial-based group.  After an eight year follow-up, there were no
significant differences in death or stroke between the two groups19.
            In the Mode Selection Trial in Sinus Node Dysfunction (MOST) study, 2020 patients
with SND received dual chamber pacemakers and were randomized to either VVIR or DDDR
pacing11. The mean follow-up was 33 months and the primary endpoints were death and nonfatal
stroke.  There  were  no  differences  in  the  primary  endpoint  between  the  two  groups.  The
incidence of atrial fibrillation was lower with dual-chamber pacing.  Subsequent analyses of the
MOST data, has shown that the benefits of A-V sequential pacing are likely attenuated by the
ventricular pacing that occurs in the DDDR mode  20. Patients with a pre-paced QRS duration
less than 120 ms were analyzed for percentage of ventricular pacing and clinical events.  The
percentage of ventricular pacing was determined from stored pacemaker data. The percentage of
ventricular pacing was greater in the DDDR versus VVIR mode (90% vs. 58%).  The percentage
of  ventricular  pacing  was  a  strong predictor  of  heart  failure  hospitalization  in  both  pacing
modes.  The risk of AF increased linearly with percentage of ventricular pacing in both groups. 
The authors concluded that ventricular desynchronization imposed by ventricular pacing even
when A-V synchrony is preserved increases the risk of heart failure hospitalization and AF in
SND with normal baseline QRS duration.  The analyses by Sweeney et al. illustrate the fact that
DDDR and DDD pacing is not physiologic.  The pacing mode that is most physiologic is AAI or
AAIR. This fact can likely explain the discrepancies between the study by Anderson et al. and
the subsequent studies in pacemaker mode selection.  The benefit derived from A-V sequential
pacing in the CTTOP and MOST studies was likely counterbalanced by the detrimental effects
of right ventricular pacing seen in the DDDR mode.
            Several ongoing trials are looking at the benefits of reduction in RV pacing in the DDDR
mode. The first is the Danish Multicenter Randomized Study of Atrial Inhibited Versus Dual-
Chamber Pacing in Sick Sinus Syndrome (DANPACE).  This trial is comparing AAI pacing and
DDDR pacing with a short A-V delay.  The second is the Search A-V Extension for Promoting
Atrioventricular Conduction (SAVE-PACE) study.  This study will evaluate the use of search
hysteresis,  a  pacemaker  feature  that  allows  the  extension  of  the  A-V delay to  reduce  right
ventricular pacing.  The study investigators hypothesize that the reduction in RV pacing will
lead to a reduction in left ventricular remodeling and AF.
Conclusion
            Pacemaker syndrome is a common problem faced by clinicians who implant pacemakers
Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal (ISSN 0972-6292), 4(4): 195-200 (2004)
D. Michael Farmer, N.A. Mark Estes, III, Mark S. Link,                                            199
“New Concepts in Pacemaker Syndrome”
and for those who take care of these patients.  The syndrome is likely caused by both the loss of
A-V and V-V synchrony imposed by right ventricular pacing.  The studies on pacemaker mode
selection have shown a high incidence of pacemaker syndrome.  Because of the high incidence
of pacemaker syndrome in VVIR-paced patients, atrial-based pacing is preferred.  
            These  studies  have  also  showed  that  DDDR pacing  as  compared to  VVIR pacing
decreases the incidence of AF, but does not affect stroke or mortality.  The percentage of beats
ventricular paced in these studies in patients who received dual-chamber pacemakers is likely to
influence the incidence of pacemaker syndrome and heart failure.  The amount of ventricular
pacing in the DDDR mode is dependent on spontaneous A-V conduction and programmed A-V
delay.  Optimal programming should seek to reduce ventricular pacing.  The reduction in the
percentage of RV pacing in dual-chamber pacing modes will  likely reduce the incidence of
pacemaker syndrome, heart failure, and possibly mortality.  
References 
1. Link  MS,  Hellkamp AS,  Estes  NAM, et  al.  High  incidence  of  pacemaker  syndrome  in
patients with sinus node dysfunction treated with ventricular-based pacing in the Mode Selection
Trial (MOST), JACC, Vol. 43, No. 11, 2004: 2066-2071.
2.  Mitsui T, Hori  M,  Suma K, Wanibuchi  Y, Saigusa M.  The “pacemaking syndrome.” In:
Jacobs  JE,  ed.  Proceedings  of  the  Eighth  Annual  International  Conference  on  Medical  and
Biological  Engineering.  Chicago,  Ill:  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Medical
Instrumentation; 1969:29-33. 
3. Ellenbogen KA, Gilligan DM, Wood MA, Morillo C, Barold SS.  The pacemaker syndrome- a
matter of definition. Am J Cardiol 1997;79:1226-9.
4. Ausubel K, Furman S. The pacemaker syndrome. Ann Intern Med 1985;103:420-9.
5. Furman S. Pacemaker Syndrome. Pacing Clin Electrophysiology 1994;17:1-5.
6. Ellenbogen, KA, Wood MA. Cardiac Pacing and ICDs. 3rd Edition: 149-150.
7. Anderson HR, Thuesen L, Bagger JP, Vesturlund T, Thomsen PEB. Prospective randomized
trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing in sick-sinus syndrome. Lancet 1994; 344:1523-8.
8.  Heldman D., Mulvihill D, Nguyen H, et al. True incidence of pacemaker syndrome. Pacing
Clin Electrophysiol 1990;13:1742-50. 
9.   Lamas GA, Orav EJ,  Stambler BS, et  al.  Quality of life and clinical outcomes in elderly
patients treated with ventricular pacing as compared to dual chamber- pacing. N Engl J Med
1998;338:1097-104.
10. Connolly SJ, Kerr CR, Gent M, et al.  Effects of physiologic pacing versus ventricular pacing
on the risk of stroke or death due to cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1385-91.
11. Lamas GA, Lee KL, Sweeney MO et al.  Ventricular pacing or dual chamber pacing for sinus
node dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1854-62
12. Lamas, GA. Physiological consequences of normal atrioventricular conduction: applicability
to modern cardiac pacing. J Card Surg. 1989;4:89-98.
Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal (ISSN 0972-6292), 4(4): 195-200 (2004)
D. Michael Farmer, N.A. Mark Estes, III, Mark S. Link,                                              200
“New Concepts in Pacemaker Syndrome”
13.  Zile MR, Blaustein AS, Shimizu G, et al. Right ventricular pacing reduces the rate of left
ventricular relaxation and filling. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;10:702-709.
14.   Burkhoff D, Oikawa RY, Sagawa K. Influence of pacing site  on canine left  ventricular
contraction. Am J Physiolol. 1986;251:H428-H435.
15.   Grines  CL, Bashore  TM, Boudoulas  H, et  al.  Functional  abnormalities  in  isolated left
bundle branch block.  The effect of interventricular asynchrony. Circulation. 1989; 79:845-53.
16.  Rosenqvist M, Isaaz K, Botvinivk EH, et al.  Relative importance of activation sequence
compared to atrioventricular synchrony in left ventricular function. Am J Cardiol. 1991;67:148-
156.
17.  Mark JB, Chetman PM. Ventricular pacing can induce hemodynamically significant mitral
valve regurgitation. Anesthesiology. 1991;74:375-377. 
18.   Lamas  GA,  Ellenbogen  KA.  Evidence  Base  for  Pacemaker  Mode  Selection:  From
Physiology to Randomized Trials. Circulation 2004;109:443-451.
19.  Kerr CR, Connolly SJ, Abdullah HM, Roberts RS, et al. Canadian Trial of Physiological
Pacing during long term follow-up. Circulation. 2004; 109(3):357-62.
20. Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, et al. Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on
heart  failure  and  atrial  fibrillation  among  patients  with  normal  baseline  QRS duration  in  a
clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation. 2003;107:2932-2937.
Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal (ISSN 0972-6292), 4(4): 195-200 (2004)


Cardiac Pacing and ICDs. 3rd Edition:

Effects of physiologic pacing versus ventricular pacing on the risk of stroke or death due to cardiovascular causes.

High incidence of pacemaker syndrome in patients with sinus node dysfunction treated with ventricular-based pacing in the Mode Selection Trial

Pacemaker Syndrome. Pacing Clin Electrophysiology

Prospective randomized trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing in sick-sinus syndrome. Lancet

Quality of life and clinical outcomes in elderly patients treated with ventricular pacing as compared to dual chamber- pacing.

The “pacemaking syndrome.” In:

The pacemaker syndrome- a matter of definition.

The pacemaker syndrome.

True incidence of pacemaker syndrome. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol

New Concepts in Pacemaker Syndrome

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CogPrints Cognitive Sciences Eprint Archive

Cognitive Sciences ePrint Archive