Abstract:Aims Despite half of all heart failure patients suffering from heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), treatment options are limited. This study aims to compare safety and efficacy of standard pacemaker programming (DDD or DDDR) and a novel pacing algorithm PressurePaceTM (BaroPace Inc, Issaquah, WA, USA) which modulates atrial pacing rate based on blood pressure (BPAP). Methods This prospective, randomized, double‐blind, non‐significant risk proof of concept study was conducted at two large cardiology clinics in Los Angeles, California, USA. Subjects underwent two modified Bruce protocol graded treadmill exercise tests in which pacemaker programming was randomized to either standard programming (DDD or DDDR), or BPAP at least 1 week apart. Physiological measurements of heart rate (HR), and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) were collected at 2 min intervals. During the BPAP treadmill test, the pacemaker activity sensor was disabled. The PressurePace algorithm instructed the pacemaker technician to modify or leave unchanged the atrial pacing rate based on these BP measurements. Subjects and clinical staff were blinded to pacemaker programming, only the pacemaker technician was unblinded. Results Ten subjects with HFpEF associated with hypertension who also had permanent dual‐chamber pacemakers, previously implanted for standard clinical indications, participated in the study. Mean age was 70.1 ± 6.8 years, left ventricular ejection fraction of 54.8 ± 1.9%. Exercise duration increased in all 10 subjects, when paced in the BPAP mode compared with standard pacemaker programming, showing a mean increase of 117 s (26%, P = 0.0016). The algorithm could adjust HR at each 2 min interval. The majority of subjects (60%) had their atrial pacing rate increased an average of 20% at t = 2 min. In the remaining 40% of subjects, the algorithm instructed HR to be unchanged. In two subjects, the pacing rate was not increased until t = 6 min. In contrast, subjects programmed to DDDR experienced an average of 45% increase in atrial pacing rate at t = 2 min. In the post‐treadmill recovery period, SBP was higher for subjects who underwent BPAP. This difference in SBP was most pronounced immediately post‐treadmill and diminished as subjects progressed through the 30 min recovery period. Statistical significance was achieved at t = 0, 20, and 30 min post‐treadmill. Conclusions An increase in exercise duration was reported in HFpEF subjects using a pacing algorithm that modulated HR based on BP compared with standard programming. These encouraging results form the basis for a larger, randomized cross‐over trial to confirm these initial observations, further characterize the safety, efficacy, and possible mechanisms of action in both acute and longer‐term treatment.

Safety and efficacy of adaptive atrial pacing regulated by blood pressure during low‐level exercise: a proof‐of‐concept study

Feasibility and Safety of Both His Bundle Pacing and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Intermediate Term Follow-Up

His-bundle pacing vs biventricular pacing following atrioventricular nodal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and reduced ejection fraction: A multicenter, randomized, crossover study-The ALTERNATIVE-AF trial

Upgrade to his bundle pacing in pacing-dependent patients referred for pulse generator change: Feasibility and intermediate term follow up

Long-term Safety and Feasibility of Permanent His Bundle Pacing

A Multi-Lead ECG Monitoring Combined with a Programmed Intracavitary ECG to Complete LBBaP Pacing: Study Protocol for a Single-center, Prospective Study

Permanent Pacing Reduces Blood Pressure in Older Patients with Drug-resistant Hypertension: A New Pacing Paradigm?

Rationale and Evidence for the Development of a Durable Device-Based Cardiac Neuromodulation Therapy for Hypertension.

Permanent left atrial pacing therapy may improve symptoms in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction and atrial dyssynchrony: a pilot study prior to a national clinical research programme

Anti-bradycardia pacing—impact on patients with HFpEF: a systematic review

Reduction of Unnecessary Right Ventricular Pacing by Managed Ventricular Pacing and Search AV+ Algorithms in Pacemaker Patients: 12-Month Follow-Up Results of a Randomized Study.

Rationale and Design of OPT-RATE AF: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Increased Physiologic Pacing Rates in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Safety and efficacy of His-Purkinje system pacing in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Predictors of the efficacy of His bundle pacing in patients with a prolonged PR interval: A stratified analysis of the HOPE‐HF randomized controlled trial

Distal Ventricular Pacing for Drug-Refractory Mid-Cavity Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Personalized Pacing

Larger QRS but better hemodynamic function after high output His bundle pacing in patients with heart failure and narrow QRS. A paradox or a new concept?

The Pacing to Avoid Cardiac Enlargement (PACE) trial: clinical background, rationale, design, and implementation.

Physician‐directed patient self‐management in heart failure using left atrial pressure: Interim insights from the VECTOR‐HF I and IIa studies

AV‐optimized conduction system pacing for treatment of AV dromotropathy: A randomized, cross‐over study

Differentiating Left Atrial Pressure Responses in Paroxysmal and Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Implications for Diagnosing Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Managing Atrial Fibrillation

P508Biventricular pacing versus His bundle pacing after atrioventricular node ablation in heart failure patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and narrow QRS