INTRODUCTION: The beneficial effects of atrial pacing on the incidence, duration and symptomatology of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) may be negated by increased ventricular pacing. This prospective randomised study evaluates the effect of pacing algorithms that minimise ventricular pacing (MinVP) with and without anti-AF algorithms, on AF burden (AFB) in patients with symptomatic PAF. METHODS:Patients implanted with pacemakers with MinVP capability with AFB1-70% were enrolled. Three different DDDRP devices were assessed. Following a 1-month induction phase, patients were randomised to MinVP with and without preventive AF algorithms or dual chamber rate adaptive pacemaker (DDDR) (AV delay (AVD) 150 ms) for 2 months per study phase. The primary outcome measure was AFB. RESULTS:One hundred and ten patients were enrolled; of these, 66 (mean age 74.3 + or - 7.9, 56% males) had an AFB of 1-70% during the induction phase and completed all study phases. There was no significant difference in AFB between the control phase DDDR, 13.8% (95% CI 8.7 to 18.8), and MinVP, 14.4% (95% CI 9.4 to 19.4), or MinVP with AF algorithms enabled, 14.7% (95% CI 9.7 to 19.7), (p = 0.65 and p = 0.49, respectively). Median ventricular pacing was significantly higher during the control phase, 86.0% (IQR 72.8, 97.3), than in MinVP 2.0% (IQR 0.0, 14.1) and MinVP + algorithms 3.0% (IQR 0.4, 15.6), p = < 0.001. CONCLUSION: MinVP algorithms are effective in reducing ventricular pacing. However, there is no significant reduction in AFB with minimal ventricular pacing algorithms in the short term. No additional benefit or adverse outcome was found with preventative anti-AF algorithms in combination with MinVP algorithms.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The beneficial effects of atrial pacing on the incidence, duration and symptomatology of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) may be negated by increased ventricular pacing. This prospective randomised study evaluates the effect of pacing algorithms that minimise ventricular pacing (MinVP) with and without anti-AF algorithms, on AF burden (AFB) in patients with symptomatic PAF. METHODS:Patients implanted with pacemakers with MinVP capability with AFB 1-70% were enrolled. Three different DDDRP devices were assessed. Following a 1-month induction phase, patients were randomised to MinVP with and without preventive AF algorithms or dual chamber rate adaptive pacemaker (DDDR) (AV delay (AVD) 150 ms) for 2 months per study phase. The primary outcome measure was AFB. RESULTS: One hundred and ten patients were enrolled; of these, 66 (mean age 74.3 + or - 7.9, 56% males) had an AFB of 1-70% during the induction phase and completed all study phases. There was no significant difference in AFB between the control phase DDDR, 13.8% (95% CI 8.7 to 18.8), and MinVP, 14.4% (95% CI 9.4 to 19.4), or MinVP with AF algorithms enabled, 14.7% (95% CI 9.7 to 19.7), (p = 0.65 and p = 0.49, respectively). Median ventricular pacing was significantly higher during the control phase, 86.0% (IQR 72.8, 97.3), than in MinVP 2.0% (IQR 0.0, 14.1) and MinVP + algorithms 3.0% (IQR 0.4, 15.6), p = < 0.001. CONCLUSION: MinVP algorithms are effective in reducing ventricular pacing. However, there is no significant reduction in AFB with minimal ventricular pacing algorithms in the short term. No additional benefit or adverse outcome was found with preventative anti-AF algorithms in combination with MinVP algorithms.
Authors: Gabriel Gregoratos; Jonathan Abrams; Andrew E Epstein; Roger A Freedman; David L Hayes; Mark A Hlatky; Richard E Kerber; Gerald V Naccarelli; Mark H Schoenfeld; Michael J Silka; Stephen L Winters Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-11-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael O Sweeney; Julie B Shea; Victoria Fox; Stuart Adler; Linda Nelson; Thomas J Mullen; Paul Belk; David Casavant; Todd Sheldon Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Luigi Padeletti; Helmut Pürerfellner; Stuart W Adler; Theodore J Waller; Mark Harvey; Lewis Horvitz; Reece Holbrook; Kitty Kempen; Andrew Mugglin; Douglas A Hettrick Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2003-11
Authors: H R Andersen; J C Nielsen; P E Thomsen; L Thuesen; P T Mortensen; T Vesterlund; A K Pedersen Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-10-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A J Camm; N Sulke; N Edvardsson; P Ritter; B A Albers; J H Ruiter; T Lewalter; P A Capucci; E Hoffmann Journal: Europace Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: A Puglisi; G Altamura; F Capestro; B Castaldi; G Critelli; S Favale; L Pavia; G Pettinati Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: R A Veasey; C Sugihara; K Sandhu; G Dhillon; N Freemantle; S S Furniss; A N Sulke Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Bernard Thibault; Anique Ducharme; Adrian Baranchuk; Marc Dubuc; Katia Dyrda; Peter G Guerra; Laurent Macle; Blandine Mondésert; Léna Rivard; Denis Roy; Mario Talajic; Jason Andrade; Rémi Nitzsché; Paul Khairy Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 5.501