Mohammed Shurrab1,2, Jeff S Healey3, Saleem Haj-Yahia2,4, Anna Kaoutskaia5, Giuseppe Boriani6, Aldo Carrizo3, Gianluca Botto7, David Newman1, Luigi Padeletti8,9, Stuart J Connolly3, Eugene Crystal1. 1. Arrhythmia Services, Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Room E241, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada. 2. Arrhythmia Services, Cardiology Department, An-Najah National University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine 3. Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 4. Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK 5. School of Medicine, St. Matthew's University, West Bay, Cayman Islands. 6. Cardiology Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Policlinico di Modena, Via del Pozzo, 71, 41124 Modena, Italy. 7. S. Anna Hospital, Como, Italy. 8. Cardiology Department, University of Firenze, Firenze, Italy 9. IRCCS Multimedica, Milano, Italy
Abstract
Aims: Several pacing modalities across multiple manufacturers have been introduced to minimize unnecessary right ventricular pacing. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess whether ventricular pacing reduction modalities (VPRM) influence hard clinical outcomes in comparison to standard dual-chamber pacing (DDD). Methods and Results: An electronic search was performed using Cochrane Central Register, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included in this analysis. Outcomes of interest included: frequency of ventricular pacing (VP), incident persistent/permanent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), all-cause hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Odds ratios (OR) were reported for dichotomous variables. Seven RCTs involving 4119 adult patients were identified. Ventricular pacing reduction modalities were employed in 2069 patients: (MVP, Medtronic Inc.) in 1423 and (SafeR, Sorin CRM, Clamart) in 646 patients. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between VPRM and DDD groups. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 ± 0.9 years. Ventricular pacing reduction modalities showed uniform reduction in VP in comparison to DDD groups among all individual studies. The incidence of PerAF was similar between both groups {8 vs. 10%, OR 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57; 1.24], P = 0.38}. Ventricular pacing reduction modalities showed no significant differences in comparison to DDD for all-cause hospitalization or all-cause mortality [9 vs. 11%, OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.65; 1.03), P= 0.09; 6 vs. 6%, OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.74; 1.28), P = 0.84, respectively]. Conclusion: Novel VPRM measures effectively reduce VP in comparison to standard DDD. When actively programmed, VPRM did not improve clinical outcomes and were not superior to standard DDD programming in reducing incidence of PerAF, all-cause hospitalization, or all-cause mortality.
Aims: Several pacing modalities across multiple manufacturers have been introduced to minimize unnecessary right ventricular pacing. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess whether ventricular pacing reduction modalities (VPRM) influence hard clinical outcomes in comparison to standard dual-chamber pacing (DDD). Methods and Results: An electronic search was performed using Cochrane Central Register, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included in this analysis. Outcomes of interest included: frequency of ventricular pacing (VP), incident persistent/permanent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), all-cause hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Odds ratios (OR) were reported for dichotomous variables. Seven RCTs involving 4119 adult patients were identified. Ventricular pacing reduction modalities were employed in 2069 patients: (MVP, Medtronic Inc.) in 1423 and (SafeR, Sorin CRM, Clamart) in 646 patients. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between VPRM and DDD groups. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 ± 0.9 years. Ventricular pacing reduction modalities showed uniform reduction in VP in comparison to DDD groups among all individual studies. The incidence of PerAF was similar between both groups {8 vs. 10%, OR 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57; 1.24], P = 0.38}. Ventricular pacing reduction modalities showed no significant differences in comparison to DDD for all-cause hospitalization or all-cause mortality [9 vs. 11%, OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.65; 1.03), P= 0.09; 6 vs. 6%, OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.74; 1.28), P = 0.84, respectively]. Conclusion: Novel VPRM measures effectively reduce VP in comparison to standard DDD. When actively programmed, VPRM did not improve clinical outcomes and were not superior to standard DDD programming in reducing incidence of PerAF, all-cause hospitalization, or all-cause mortality.
Authors: Jason Payne; Ann C Garlitski; Jonathan Weinstock; Munther Homoud; Christopher Madias; N A Mark Estes Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Mohammed Shurrab; Teresa Pagacz; Ayelet Shauer; Ilan Lashevsky; David Newman; Eugene Crystal Journal: Clin Med Insights Cardiol Date: 2017-06-23
Authors: Andrew J M Lewis; Paul Foley; Zachary Whinnett; Daniel Keene; Badrinathan Chandrasekaran Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Floor C W M Salden; Peter R Huntjens; Rick Schreurs; Erik Willemen; Marion Kuiper; Philippe Wouters; Jos G Maessen; Pierre Bordachar; Tammo Delhaas; Justin Luermans; Mathias Meine; Cornelis P Allaart; Antonius M W van Stipdonk; Frits W Prinzen; Joost Lumens; Kevin Vernooy Journal: Europace Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 5.486
Authors: Pablo M Ruiz-Hernandez; Esteban Gonzalez-Torrecilla; Enrique Gutierrez-Ibañez; Hugo Gonzalez-Saldivar; Vanesa Bruña; Gerard Loughlin; Evaristo Castellanos; Pablo Avila; Felipe Atienza; Tomas Datino; Jaime Elizaga; Angel Arenal; Francisco Fernández-Aviles Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2020-11-01
Authors: Akram Youssef; Christian Pfluecke; Maciej Dawid; Karim Ibrahim; Michael Günther; Steffen Kolschmann; Utz Richter; Alexander Francke; Carsten Wunderlich; Marian Christoph Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 2.298