M Stockburger1, L Gerhardt, S Helms, M Schlegl, C Butter. 1. Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Department of Cardiology, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany. martin.stockburger@charite.de
Abstract
AIMS: Bifocal right atrial pacing (BP) has been reported to increase arrhythmia-free intervals in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) under antiarrhythmic drugs. This study compares AF burden with unifocal pacing (UP) vs BP under sotalol. METHODS: In 19 patients with PAF a DDDR pacemaker with right atrial lateral and CS ostial leads was implanted. Sotalol was initiated. After a 3 month back-up pacing period patients were randomized to continuous UP or BP for 3 months and crossed over for 3 more months. Primary endpoint was AF burden. Secondary endpoints included number of episodes, time to first recurrence and safety of BP. RESULTS: The intention to treat analysis revealed 12.4% AF during back-up, 6.2% during UP and BP (p=0.91 UP vs BP, p=0.08 back-up vs UP and p=0.07 back-up vs BP). Per protocol analysis showed no advantage of either pacing mode (UP 4.8% and BP 5.4% AF, p=0.64). Overdrive pacing reduced AF burden to 6.2 vs 8.8% during back-up (p=0.09). Septal lead dislodgement occurred in 3 patients. CONCLUSION: Atrial pacing tends to reduce AF burden in patients with PAF under sotalol. An incremental effect of BP vs UP cannot be confirmed. BP may be complicated by elevated lead dislodgement rates.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: Bifocal right atrial pacing (BP) has been reported to increase arrhythmia-free intervals in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) under antiarrhythmic drugs. This study compares AF burden with unifocal pacing (UP) vs BP under sotalol. METHODS: In 19 patients with PAF a DDDR pacemaker with right atrial lateral and CS ostial leads was implanted. Sotalol was initiated. After a 3 month back-up pacing period patients were randomized to continuous UP or BP for 3 months and crossed over for 3 more months. Primary endpoint was AF burden. Secondary endpoints included number of episodes, time to first recurrence and safety of BP. RESULTS: The intention to treat analysis revealed 12.4% AF during back-up, 6.2% during UP and BP (p=0.91 UP vs BP, p=0.08 back-up vs UP and p=0.07 back-up vs BP). Per protocol analysis showed no advantage of either pacing mode (UP 4.8% and BP 5.4% AF, p=0.64). Overdrive pacing reduced AF burden to 6.2 vs 8.8% during back-up (p=0.09). Septal lead dislodgement occurred in 3 patients. CONCLUSION: Atrial pacing tends to reduce AF burden in patients with PAF under sotalol. An incremental effect of BP vs UP cannot be confirmed. BP may be complicated by elevated lead dislodgement rates.
Authors: A R Misier; T Opthof; N M van Hemel; J J Defauw; J M de Bakker; M J Janse; F J van Capelle Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1992-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: C P Lau; H F Tse; C M Yu; W S Teo; R Kam; K S Ng; S S Huang; J L Lin; S M Fitts; D A Hettrick; M R Hill Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2001-08-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Michael O Sweeney; Anne S Hellkamp; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Arnold J Greenspon; Roger A Freedman; Kerry L Lee; Gervasio A Lamas Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-06-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A Michelucci; L Padeletti; G A Fradella; R Molina Lova; D Monizzi; A Giomi; F Fantini Journal: Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol Date: 1984-05