Shaojie Chen1,2, Zhenglong Wang3, Marcio Galindo Kiuchi4,5, Bruno Rustum Andrea6, Mitchell W Krucoff7, Shaowen Liu8, Helmut Pürerfellner9. 1. Fellowship EHRA/ESC & APHRS; Department of Cardiology, Shanghai General Hospital/Shanghai First People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. drsjchen@126.com. 2. Fellowship EHRA/ESC, EHRA/ESC Academic Teaching Center, Department of Cardiology, Elisabethinen University Teaching Hospital Linz, Linz, Austria. drsjchen@126.com. 3. Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical College, Zunyi, China. 4. Hospital Regional Darcy Vargas, Rio Bonito, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 5. Department of Medicine, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 6. Sul Fluminense University Hospital, Vassouras, Brazil. 7. Duke Clinical Research Institute/Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 8. Department of Cardiology, Shanghai General Hospital/Shanghai First People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 9. European Heart Rhythm Association/European Society of Cardiology, Academic Teaching Center, Department of Cardiology, Elisabethinen University Teaching Hospital Linz, Linz, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pacing-modes selection in sinus-node-dysfunction (SND) patients continues to be a subject of debate. Atrial fibrillation (AF) and cardiac dysfunction remain significant problems following cardiac-pacing therapy. Prevention of these complications is of clinical relevance. METHODS: We performed a collaborative pooled-analysis of randomized trials (RCT) to evaluate the effect of currently available pacing strategies on the risk of post-implantation AF and heart failure events (HF) in SND patients. The primary endpoint was a composite AF and HF events. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (n = 6639, male 57 %, median follow-up 2.5 years) were included. The pooled-analysis was stratified into two subsets [single chamber atrial pacing (AAI) vs. dual chamber pacing (DDD), and minimal ventricular pacing (MinVP) vs. DDD]. No significant difference was observed in the AAI vs. DDD subset regarding the primary outcome (P = 0.83). Notably, the mean percentage of ventricular-pacing in the MinVP group was 6.5 vs. 77.4 % in the DDD group (P < 0.05), and MinVP was associated with a substantially reduced risk of composite AF and HF (OR 0.66, P = 0.007) in patients receiving pacemaker as primary treatment. However, in the long-term paced patients scheduled for device replacement, there was no significant difference in the rate of primary endpoint between MinVP vs. DDD groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results support MinVP over conventional DDD for SND patients who received pacemaker as primary treatment in improving the clinical outcome. For patients who already had chronic ventricular-pacing and impaired cardiac function, a device update to MinVP algorithm may exert no favorable effect on the cardiac performance.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Pacing-modes selection in sinus-node-dysfunction (SND) patients continues to be a subject of debate. Atrial fibrillation (AF) and cardiac dysfunction remain significant problems following cardiac-pacing therapy. Prevention of these complications is of clinical relevance. METHODS: We performed a collaborative pooled-analysis of randomized trials (RCT) to evaluate the effect of currently available pacing strategies on the risk of post-implantation AF and heart failure events (HF) in SND patients. The primary endpoint was a composite AF and HF events. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (n = 6639, male 57 %, median follow-up 2.5 years) were included. The pooled-analysis was stratified into two subsets [single chamber atrial pacing (AAI) vs. dual chamber pacing (DDD), and minimal ventricular pacing (MinVP) vs. DDD]. No significant difference was observed in the AAI vs. DDD subset regarding the primary outcome (P = 0.83). Notably, the mean percentage of ventricular-pacing in the MinVP group was 6.5 vs. 77.4 % in the DDD group (P < 0.05), and MinVP was associated with a substantially reduced risk of composite AF and HF (OR 0.66, P = 0.007) in patients receiving pacemaker as primary treatment. However, in the long-term paced patients scheduled for device replacement, there was no significant difference in the rate of primary endpoint between MinVP vs. DDD groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results support MinVP over conventional DDD for SND patients who received pacemaker as primary treatment in improving the clinical outcome. For patients who already had chronic ventricular-pacing and impaired cardiac function, a device update to MinVP algorithm may exert no favorable effect on the cardiac performance.
Authors: S J Connolly; C R Kerr; M Gent; R S Roberts; S Yusuf; A M Gillis; M H Sami; M Talajic; A S Tang; G J Klein; C Lau; D M Newman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-05-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A S Tang; R S Roberts; C Kerr; A M Gillis; M S Green; M Talajic; S Yusuf; H Abdollah; M Gent; S J Connolly Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-06-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David Newman; Ching Lau; Anthony S L Tang; Jane Irvine; Miney Paquette; Kirsten Woodend; Paul Dorian; Michael Gent; Charles Kerr; Stuart J Connolly Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Charles R Kerr; Stuart J Connolly; Hoshiar Abdollah; Robin S Roberts; Michael Gent; Salim Yusuf; Anne M Gillis; Anthony S L Tang; Mario Talajic; George J Klein; David M Newman Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-01-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jens C Nielsen; Lene Kristensen; Henning R Andersen; Peter T Mortensen; Ole L Pedersen; Anders K Pedersen Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-08-20 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Michael A Lee; Richard Weachter; Scott Pollak; Mark S Kremers; Ajay M Naik; Russell Silverman; Joann Tuzi; Wayne Wang; Linda J Johnson; David E Euler Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-06-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Gervasio A Lamas; Kerry L Lee; Michael O Sweeney; Russell Silverman; Angel Leon; Raymond Yee; Roger A Marinchak; Greg Flaker; Eleanor Schron; E John Orav; Anne S Hellkamp; Stephen Greer; John McAnulty; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Frederick Ehlert; Roger A Freedman; N A Mark Estes; Arnold Greenspon; Lee Goldman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-13 Impact factor: 91.245