BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPs) provide ventricular pacing without the risks associated with transvenous leads and device pockets. LPs are appealing for patients who need pacing, but do not need defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy. Most implanted LPs provide right ventricular pacing without atrioventricular synchrony (VVIR mode). The Mode Selection Trial in Sinus Node Dysfunction (MOST) showed similar outcomes in patients randomized to dual-chamber (DDDR) versus ventricular pacing (VVIR). We compared outcomes by pacing mode in LP-eligible patients from MOST. METHODS:Patients enrolled in the MOST study with an left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35%, QRS duration (QRSd) <120 ms and no history of ventricular arrhythmias or prior implantable cardioverter defibrillators were included (LP-eligible population). Cox proportional hazards models were used to test the association between pacing mode and death, stroke or heart failure (HF) hospitalization and atrial fibrillation (AF). RESULTS: Of the 2010 patients enrolled in MOST, 1284 patients (64%) met inclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across included patients randomized to DDDR (N = 630) and VVIR (N = 654). Over 4 years of follow-up, there was no association between pacing mode and death, stroke or HF hospitalization (VVIR HR 1.28 [0.92-1.75]). VVIR pacing was associated with higher risk of AF (HR 1.32 [1.08-1.61], P = .007), particularly in patients with no history of AF (HR 2.38 [1.52-3.85], P < .001). CONCLUSION: In patients without reduced LVEF or prolonged QRSd who would be eligible for LP, DDDR, and VVIR pacing demonstrated similar rates of death, stroke or HF hospitalization; however, VVIR pacing significantly increased the risk of AF development.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPs) provide ventricular pacing without the risks associated with transvenous leads and device pockets. LPs are appealing for patients who need pacing, but do not need defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy. Most implanted LPs provide right ventricular pacing without atrioventricular synchrony (VVIR mode). The Mode Selection Trial in Sinus Node Dysfunction (MOST) showed similar outcomes in patients randomized to dual-chamber (DDDR) versus ventricular pacing (VVIR). We compared outcomes by pacing mode in LP-eligible patients from MOST. METHODS:Patients enrolled in the MOST study with an left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35%, QRS duration (QRSd) <120 ms and no history of ventricular arrhythmias or prior implantable cardioverter defibrillators were included (LP-eligible population). Cox proportional hazards models were used to test the association between pacing mode and death, stroke or heart failure (HF) hospitalization and atrial fibrillation (AF). RESULTS: Of the 2010 patients enrolled in MOST, 1284 patients (64%) met inclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across included patients randomized to DDDR (N = 630) and VVIR (N = 654). Over 4 years of follow-up, there was no association between pacing mode and death, stroke or HF hospitalization (VVIR HR 1.28 [0.92-1.75]). VVIR pacing was associated with higher risk of AF (HR 1.32 [1.08-1.61], P = .007), particularly in patients with no history of AF (HR 2.38 [1.52-3.85], P < .001). CONCLUSION: In patients without reduced LVEF or prolonged QRSd who would be eligible for LP, DDDR, and VVIR pacing demonstrated similar rates of death, stroke or HF hospitalization; however, VVIR pacing significantly increased the risk of AF development.
Authors: Dwight Reynolds; Gabor Z Duray; Razali Omar; Kyoko Soejima; Petr Neuzil; Shu Zhang; Calambur Narasimhan; Clemens Steinwender; Josep Brugada; Michael Lloyd; Paul R Roberts; Venkata Sagi; John Hummel; Maria Grazia Bongiorni; Reinoud E Knops; Christopher R Ellis; Charles C Gornick; Matthew A Bernabei; Verla Laager; Kurt Stromberg; Eric R Williams; J Harrison Hudnall; Philippe Ritter Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Clemens Steinwender; Surinder Kaur Khelae; Christophe Garweg; Joseph Yat Sun Chan; Philippe Ritter; Jens Brock Johansen; Venkata Sagi; Laurence M Epstein; Jonathan P Piccini; Mario Pascual; Lluis Mont; Todd Sheldon; Vincent Splett; Kurt Stromberg; Nicole Wood; Larry Chinitz Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2019-11-11
Authors: Paul R Roberts; Nicolas Clementy; Faisal Al Samadi; Christophe Garweg; Jose Luis Martinez-Sande; Saverio Iacopino; Jens Brock Johansen; Xavier Vinolas Prat; Robert C Kowal; Didier Klug; Lluis Mont; Jan Steffel; Shelby Li; Dirk Van Osch; Mikhael F El-Chami Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Erik O Udo; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Norbert M van Hemel; Carel C de Cock; Thijs Hendriks; Pieter A Doevendans; Karel G M Moons Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Mark S Link; Anne S Hellkamp; N A Mark Estes; E John Orav; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Bassiema Ibrahim; Arnold Greenspon; Carlos Rizo-Patron; Lee Goldman; Kerry L Lee; Gervasio A Lamas Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-06-02 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
Authors: Christophe Garweg; Todd J Sheldon; Larry Chinitz; Philippe Ritter; Clemens Steinwender; Rik Willems Journal: HeartRhythm Case Rep Date: 2018-08-14