Literature DB >> 18233969

Comparison of two strategies to reduce ventricular pacing in pacemaker patients.

Helmut Pürerfellner1, Johan Brandt, Carsten Israel, Todd Sheldon, James Johnson, Karlheinz Tscheliessnigg, Johannes Sperzel, Giuseppe Boriani, Andrea Puglisi, Goran Milasinovic.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Managed Ventricular Pacing (MVP) and Search AV+ (SAV+) are two pacing algorithms designed to reduce ventricular pacing. MVP promotes conduction by operating in AAI/R mode with backup ventricular pacing during atrioventricular block (AVB). SAV+ operates in DDD/R mode with a nominal AV extension of 290 ms during atrial sensing and 320 ms during atrial pacing. The reduction in ventricular pacing was compared with these two algorithms in pacemaker patients.
METHODS: The EnRhythm and EnPulse clinical studies assessed the percentage of ventricular pacing (%VP) after 1 month. Each patient's AVB status was assigned using the following hierarchical categories: persistent third-degree AVB (p3AVB), episodic third-degree AVB (e3AVB), second-degree AVB (2AVB), first-degree AVB (1AVB), and no AVB (nAVB). The%VP was tabulated for each AVB status category.
RESULTS: Data were available from 322 patients of whom 129 received DDD(R) pacing with the MVP algorithm activated and 193 patients with DDD(R) pacing and the SAV+ function activated, each for a month period. MVP resulted in a significantly lower median%VP than SAV+ in all AVB categories except for p3AVB: nAVB (0.3 vs 2.9, P < 0.0001), 1AVB (0.9% vs 80.6%, P < 0.0001), 2AVB (37.6 vs 99.3, P< 0.002), e3AVB (1.2 vs 42.2, P = 0.02), p3AVB (98.9 vs 100, P = 1.00).
CONCLUSION: MVP resulted in a greater reduction in%VP than SAV+ across all patient groups except persistent third-degree AV block. The greatest reduction in%VP was observed in patients with mildly impaired AV conduction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18233969     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00965.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  5 in total

1.  Minimizing right ventricular pacing in pacemaker patients with intact and compromised atrioventricular conduction : Results from the EVITA Trial.

Authors:  A Bauer; J Vermeulen; L Toivonen; J Voitk; C Barr; P Peytchev
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2015-08-28

Review 2.  Management of atrial fibrillation in bradyarrhythmias.

Authors:  Giuseppe Boriani; Luigi Padeletti
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 32.419

3.  Atrial pacing, the forgotten pacing mode.

Authors:  M El Gamal
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.380

4.  2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing.

Authors:  Bruce L Wilkoff; Laurent Fauchier; Martin K Stiles; Carlos A Morillo; Sana M Al-Khatib; Jesœs Almendral; Luis Aguinaga; Ronald D Berger; Alejandro Cuesta; James P Daubert; Sergio Dubner; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Guilherme Fenelon; Fermin C Garcia; Maurizio Gasparini; David E Haines; Jeff S Healey; Jodie L Hurtwitz; Roberto Keegan; Christof Kolb; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Germanas Marinskis; Martino Martinelli; Mark McGuire; Luis G Molina; Ken Okumura; Alessandro Proclemer; Andrea M Russo; Jagmeet P Singh; Charles D Swerdlow; Wee Siong Teo; William Uribe; Sami Viskin; Chun-Chieh Wang; Shu Zhang
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2016-02-01

5.  Difference in percentage of ventricular pacing between two algorithms for minimizing ventricular pacing: results of the IDEAL RVP (Identify the Best Algorithm for Reducing Unnecessary Right Ventricular Pacing) study.

Authors:  Yoshimasa Murakami; Naoya Tsuboi; Yasuya Inden; Yukihiko Yoshida; Toyoaki Murohara; Zenichi Ihara; Mitsuaki Takami
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.214

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.