AIMS: This investigation was conducted to determine the effectiveness of several conventional overdrive pacing modalities (single rate and rate responsive pacing at various lower rates) and of four dedicated preventive pacing algorithms in the suppression of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). METHOD AND RESULTS: In this multi-centre, randomized trial, 372 patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF were enrolled. Patients received a dual-chamber pacing device capable of delivering conventional pacing therapy as well as dedicated AF prevention pacing therapies and to record detailed AF-related diagnostics. The primary endpoint was AF burden, whereas secondary endpoints were time to first AF episode and averaged sinus rhythm duration. During a conventional pacing phase, patients were randomized to single rate or rate-responsive pacing with lower rates of either 70 or 85 min(-1) or to a control group with single rate pacing at 40 min(-1). In the subsequent preventive pacing phase, patients underwent pacing at a lower rate of 70 min(-1) with or without concomitant application of four preventive pacing algorithms. A substantial amount of data was excluded from the analysis because of atrial-sensing artefacts, identified in the device-captured diagnostics. In the conventional pacing phase, no significant differences were found between various lower rates and the control group receiving single rate pacing at 40 min(-1) or between single rate and rate-responsive pacing. Patients receivingpreventive pacing with all four therapies enabled had a similar AF burden compared with patients treated with conventional pacing at 70 min(-1) (P = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: The results do not demonstrate a significant effect of conventional atrial overdrive pacing or preventive pacing therapies. However, the observations provided important information for further consideration with respect to the design and conduct of future studies on the effect of atrial pacing therapies for the reduction of AF.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: This investigation was conducted to determine the effectiveness of several conventional overdrive pacing modalities (single rate and rate responsive pacing at various lower rates) and of four dedicated preventive pacing algorithms in the suppression of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). METHOD AND RESULTS: In this multi-centre, randomized trial, 372 patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF were enrolled. Patients received a dual-chamber pacing device capable of delivering conventional pacing therapy as well as dedicated AF prevention pacing therapies and to record detailed AF-related diagnostics. The primary endpoint was AF burden, whereas secondary endpoints were time to first AF episode and averaged sinus rhythm duration. During a conventional pacing phase, patients were randomized to single rate or rate-responsive pacing with lower rates of either 70 or 85 min(-1) or to a control group with single rate pacing at 40 min(-1). In the subsequent preventive pacing phase, patients underwent pacing at a lower rate of 70 min(-1) with or without concomitant application of four preventive pacing algorithms. A substantial amount of data was excluded from the analysis because of atrial-sensing artefacts, identified in the device-captured diagnostics. In the conventional pacing phase, no significant differences were found between various lower rates and the control group receiving single rate pacing at 40 min(-1) or between single rate and rate-responsive pacing. Patients receiving preventive pacing with all four therapies enabled had a similar AF burden compared with patients treated with conventional pacing at 70 min(-1) (P = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: The results do not demonstrate a significant effect of conventional atrial overdrive pacing or preventive pacing therapies. However, the observations provided important information for further consideration with respect to the design and conduct of future studies on the effect of atrial pacing therapies for the reduction of AF.
Authors: Rick A Veasey; Anita Arya; Nick Freemantle; John Silberbauer; Nikhil R Patel; Guy W Lloyd; A Neil Sulke Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2010-01-16 Impact factor: 1.900