L Zhang1, H Jiang1, W Wang1, J Bai1, Y Liang1, Y Su2, J Ge3. 1. Department of Cardiology, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, 1069 Xietu Road, 200032, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Cardiology, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, 1069 Xietu Road, 200032, Shanghai, China. su.yangang@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 3. Department of Cardiology, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, 1069 Xietu Road, 200032, Shanghai, China. ge.junbo2@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interatrial septum (IAS) pacing seems to be a promising strategy for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF); however, studies have yielded conflicting results. This meta-analysis was to compare IAS with right atrial appendage (RAA) pacing on the prevention of postpacing AF occurrence. METHODS: Pubmed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched through October 2016 for randomized controlled trials comparing IAS with RAA pacing on the prevention of AF. Data concerning study design, patient characteristics and outcomes were extracted. Risk ratio (RR), weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated using fixed or random effects models. RESULTS: A total of 12 trials involving 1146 patients with dual-chamber pacing were included. Although IAS was superior to RAA pacing in terms of reducing the number of AF episodes (SMD = -0.29, P = 0.05), AF burden (SMD = -0.41, P = 0.008) and P -wave duration (WMD = -34.45 ms, P < 0.0001), neither permanent AF occurrence (RR = 0.94, P = 0.58) nor recurrences of AF (RR = 0.88, P = 0.36) were reduced by IAS pacing. Nevertheless, no differences were observed concerning all-cause death (RR = 1.04, P = 0.88), procedure-related events (RR = 1.17, P = 0.69) and pacing parameters between IAS and RAA pacing in the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: IAS pacing is safe and as well tolerated as RAA pacing. Although IAS pacing may fail to prevent permanent AF occurrence and recurrences of AF, it is able to not only improve interatrial conduction, but also reduce AF burden.
BACKGROUND: Interatrial septum (IAS) pacing seems to be a promising strategy for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF); however, studies have yielded conflicting results. This meta-analysis was to compare IAS with right atrial appendage (RAA) pacing on the prevention of postpacing AF occurrence. METHODS: Pubmed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched through October 2016 for randomized controlled trials comparing IAS with RAA pacing on the prevention of AF. Data concerning study design, patient characteristics and outcomes were extracted. Risk ratio (RR), weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated using fixed or random effects models. RESULTS: A total of 12 trials involving 1146 patients with dual-chamber pacing were included. Although IAS was superior to RAA pacing in terms of reducing the number of AF episodes (SMD = -0.29, P = 0.05), AF burden (SMD = -0.41, P = 0.008) and P -wave duration (WMD = -34.45 ms, P < 0.0001), neither permanent AF occurrence (RR = 0.94, P = 0.58) nor recurrences of AF (RR = 0.88, P = 0.36) were reduced by IAS pacing. Nevertheless, no differences were observed concerning all-cause death (RR = 1.04, P = 0.88), procedure-related events (RR = 1.17, P = 0.69) and pacing parameters between IAS and RAA pacing in the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: IAS pacing is safe and as well tolerated as RAA pacing. Although IAS pacing may fail to prevent permanent AF occurrence and recurrences of AF, it is able to not only improve interatrial conduction, but also reduce AF burden.
Authors: T Yamada; M Fukunami; T Shimonagata; K Kumagai; Y Asano; A Hirata; M Asai; N Makino; N Hoki Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2001-10-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: L Padeletti; P Pieragnoli; C Ciapetti; A Colella; N Musilli; M C Porciani; R Ricci; C Pignalberi; M Santini; A Puglisi; P Azzolini; A Spampinato; M Martelli; A Capucci; G Boriani; G Botto; A Proclemer Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: L Padeletti; M C Porciani; A Michelucci; A Colella; P Ticci; S Vena; A Costoli; C Ciapetti; P Pieragnoli; G F Gensini Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Roberto Verlato; Francesco Zanon; Emanuele Bertaglia; Pietro Turrini; Maria Stella Baccillieri; Enrico Baracca; Maria Grazia Bongiorni; Aldo Zampiero; Pietro Zonzin; Pietro Pascotto; Diego Venturini; Giorgio Corbucci Journal: J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 2.160