OBJECTIVES: We compared the safety, tolerance and effectiveness of overdrive high right atrial (RA), dual-site RA and support (DDI or VDI) pacing (SP) in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) and bradycardias. BACKGROUND: Optimal pacing methods for AF prevention remain unclear. METHODS:Patients (n = 118) were randomized to each of three pacing modes in a crossover trial. RESULTS:Mode adherence was superior for dual-site RA (5.8 months) compared with SP (3.3 months; p < 0.001) and high RA pacing (4.7 months; p = 0.006). Adverse event-free survival improved with dual-site RA (p = 0.007 vs. SP) and was comparable to high RA (p = 0. 75). AF-free survival trended to improve with dual-site RA (hazard ratio [HR] 0.715, p = 0.07 vs. SP) but not high RA (HR = 0.71, p = 0.19) or when dual-site RA was compared with high RA (HR = 0.835, p = 0.175). Time-to-recurrence was longer in dual-site RA (1.77 months) compared with high RA (0.62 months, p < 0.09) or SP (0.44 months, p < 0.05). In antiarrhythmic drug-treated patients, dual-site RA reduced recurrence risk compared with SP (HR = 0.638, p = 0.011) and high RA (HR = 0.669, p = 0.06). In patients with < or =1 AF event/week, dual-site RA improved AF suppression (HR = 0.464, p = 0.004 vs. SP; HR = 0.623, p = 0.006 vs. high RA). Dual-site RA improved AF-free and mode survival (p < 0.03 vs. high RA, p < 0.001 vs. SP) and reduced asymptomatic AF (p < 0.01 vs. high RA). CONCLUSION: Dual-site RA is safe and better tolerated than high RA and SP. In patients on antiarrhythmics, dual-site RA prolonged and high RA trended to prolong time-to-recurrent AF compared with SP. Dual-site RA provides superior symptomatic and asymptomatic AF prevention compared with high RA in patients with symptomatic AF frequency of < or =1/week.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: We compared the safety, tolerance and effectiveness of overdrive high right atrial (RA), dual-site RA and support (DDI or VDI) pacing (SP) in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) and bradycardias. BACKGROUND: Optimal pacing methods for AF prevention remain unclear. METHODS:Patients (n = 118) were randomized to each of three pacing modes in a crossover trial. RESULTS: Mode adherence was superior for dual-site RA (5.8 months) compared with SP (3.3 months; p < 0.001) and high RA pacing (4.7 months; p = 0.006). Adverse event-free survival improved with dual-site RA (p = 0.007 vs. SP) and was comparable to high RA (p = 0. 75). AF-free survival trended to improve with dual-site RA (hazard ratio [HR] 0.715, p = 0.07 vs. SP) but not high RA (HR = 0.71, p = 0.19) or when dual-site RA was compared with high RA (HR = 0.835, p = 0.175). Time-to-recurrence was longer in dual-site RA (1.77 months) compared with high RA (0.62 months, p < 0.09) or SP (0.44 months, p < 0.05). In antiarrhythmic drug-treated patients, dual-site RA reduced recurrence risk compared with SP (HR = 0.638, p = 0.011) and high RA (HR = 0.669, p = 0.06). In patients with < or =1 AF event/week, dual-site RA improved AF suppression (HR = 0.464, p = 0.004 vs. SP; HR = 0.623, p = 0.006 vs. high RA). Dual-site RA improved AF-free and mode survival (p < 0.03 vs. high RA, p < 0.001 vs. SP) and reduced asymptomatic AF (p < 0.01 vs. high RA). CONCLUSION: Dual-site RA is safe and better tolerated than high RA and SP. In patients on antiarrhythmics, dual-site RA prolonged and high RA trended to prolong time-to-recurrent AF compared with SP. Dual-site RA provides superior symptomatic and asymptomatic AF prevention compared with high RA in patients with symptomatic AF frequency of < or =1/week.