AIMS: Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is frequently encountered in pacemaker patients, most commonly in sick sinus syndrome. The combination of site-specific pacing in conjunction with an overdrive algorithm combined with antiarrhythmic drugs on the incidence of PAF in patients with a conventional indication for pacing is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with pacemaker indication and PAF received a DDDR-pacemaker, which included an automatic atrial overdrive (AO) algorithm. The atrial lead was implanted in either the right atrial appendage (RAA) (n = 83) or the right low-atrial septum (LAS) (n = 94). The algorithm was switched on or off in a 3 month, single blind crossover design and antiarrhythmic drugs were kept stable. A control group of 96 patients (LAS, n = 14; RAA, n = 84) without PAF served as controls to assess any proarrhythmic effect of overdrive pacing. Atrial fibrillation (AF) burden defined as cumulative time in mode switch was not reduced during automatic AO from either the RAA or from the LAS. The reduction was not effective both for AF of short (<24 h) and long (> or =24 h) duration. There was no atrial proarrhythmia induced by the overdrive algorithm in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: We could not demonstrate a reduction of AF burden defined as cumulative time in AF by the AO algorithm, in patients who are paced for standard indications and PAF, neither from the RAA nor from the LAS.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is frequently encountered in pacemaker patients, most commonly in sick sinus syndrome. The combination of site-specific pacing in conjunction with an overdrive algorithm combined with antiarrhythmic drugs on the incidence of PAF in patients with a conventional indication for pacing is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS:Patients with pacemaker indication and PAF received a DDDR-pacemaker, which included an automatic atrial overdrive (AO) algorithm. The atrial lead was implanted in either the right atrial appendage (RAA) (n = 83) or the right low-atrial septum (LAS) (n = 94). The algorithm was switched on or off in a 3 month, single blind crossover design and antiarrhythmic drugs were kept stable. A control group of 96 patients (LAS, n = 14; RAA, n = 84) without PAF served as controls to assess any proarrhythmic effect of overdrive pacing. Atrial fibrillation (AF) burden defined as cumulative time in mode switch was not reduced during automatic AO from either the RAA or from the LAS. The reduction was not effective both for AF of short (<24 h) and long (> or =24 h) duration. There was no atrial proarrhythmia induced by the overdrive algorithm in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: We could not demonstrate a reduction of AF burden defined as cumulative time in AF by the AO algorithm, in patients who are paced for standard indications and PAF, neither from the RAA nor from the LAS.