INTRODUCTION:Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) efficacy trials to date used atrial-synchronous biventricular pacing wherein there is no or minimal atrial pacing. However, bradycardia and chronotropic incompetence are common in this patient population. This trial was designed to evaluate the effect of atrial support pacing among heart failure patients receiving a CRT defibrillator. METHODS AND RESULTS: PEGASUS CRT was a multicenter, 3-arm, randomized study. At 6 weeks, patients were randomized to DDD mode at a lower rate of 40 bpm (DDD-40; control arm), or one of the following 2 treatment arms: DDD-70, or DDDR-40. The primary endpoint was a clinical composite endpoint that included all-cause mortality, heart failure events, NYHA functional class, and patient global self-assessment. Subjects were classified as improved, unchanged, or worsened at 12 months. There were 1,433 patients randomized, of whom 66% were male, mean age was 67 ± 11 years, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 23 ± 7%. The average follow-up time was 10.5 ± 3.5 months and 1,309 patients contributed to the primary endpoint. No significant differences were observed in the composite endpoint between either of the 2 treatment arms compared to the control arm (P>0.05 for both comparisons). Additionally, there were no differences among the groups in mortality or heart failure events. CONCLUSION: In advanced heart failure patients treated withCRT, atrial support pacing did not improve clinical outcomes compared to atrial tracking. However, atrial pacing did not adversely affect mortality or heart failure events.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) efficacy trials to date used atrial-synchronous biventricular pacing wherein there is no or minimal atrial pacing. However, bradycardia and chronotropic incompetence are common in this patient population. This trial was designed to evaluate the effect of atrial support pacing among heart failurepatients receiving a CRT defibrillator. METHODS AND RESULTS: PEGASUS CRT was a multicenter, 3-arm, randomized study. At 6 weeks, patients were randomized to DDD mode at a lower rate of 40 bpm (DDD-40; control arm), or one of the following 2 treatment arms: DDD-70, or DDDR-40. The primary endpoint was a clinical composite endpoint that included all-cause mortality, heart failure events, NYHA functional class, and patient global self-assessment. Subjects were classified as improved, unchanged, or worsened at 12 months. There were 1,433 patients randomized, of whom 66% were male, mean age was 67 ± 11 years, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 23 ± 7%. The average follow-up time was 10.5 ± 3.5 months and 1,309 patients contributed to the primary endpoint. No significant differences were observed in the composite endpoint between either of the 2 treatment arms compared to the control arm (P>0.05 for both comparisons). Additionally, there were no differences among the groups in mortality or heart failure events. CONCLUSION: In advanced heart failurepatients treated with CRT, atrial support pacing did not improve clinical outcomes compared to atrial tracking. However, atrial pacing did not adversely affect mortality or heart failure events.
Authors: David Duncker; Peter Paul Delnoy; Herbert Nägele; Jacques Mansourati; Lluís Mont; Frédéric Anselme; Petra Stengel; Francesca Anselmi; Hanno Oswald; Christophe Leclercq Journal: Europace Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 5.214
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
Authors: Johann Christoph Geller; Thorsten Lewalter; Niels Eske Bruun; Milos Taborsky; Frank Bode; Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Christoph Stellbrink; Steffen Schön; Holger Mühling; Hanno Oswald; Sebastian Reif; Stefan Kääb; Peter Illes; Jochen Proff; Nikolaos Dagres; Gerhard Hindricks Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Adam Ali Ghotbi; Mikael Sander; Lars Køber; Berit Th Philbert; Finn Gustafsson; Christoffer Hagemann; Andreas Kjær; Peter K Jacobsen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joachim Proff; Béla Merkely; Roland Papp; Corinna Lenz; Peter Nordbeck; Christian Butter; Juergen Meyerhoefer; Michael Doering; Dean J MacCarter; Katharina Ingel; Thomas Thouet; Ulf Landmesser; Mattias J Roser Journal: Europace Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 5.214