Key result
Minimization of right-ventricular stimulation did not significantly reduce progression to persistent AF compared to standard DDDR in patients with sick sinus syndrome (HR 1.25; 95% CI 0.2-7.98; p=0.47).
Why the study?
Does an algorithm for minimization of right-ventricular stimulation prevent atrial fibrillation progression in patients with sick sinus syndrome and prior atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=74)
Randomized
No
Does an algorithm for minimization of right-ventricular stimulation prevent atrial fibrillation progression in patients with sick sinus syndrome and prior atrial fibrillation?
Algorithms minimizing right-ventricular pacing do not significantly reduce AF burden or prevent progression to persistent AF at 1 year in patients with sick sinus syndrome and prior AF.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Does not support RV minimization algorithms to prevent persistent AF progression in sick sinus syndrome; small RCT leaves benefit unresolved.
Aim. To assess the efficacy of algorithms for minimization of the rightventricular stimulation (MVS) for prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) progression in patients with sick sinus node syndrome (SSS) and documented AF in anamnesis, comparing to standard bi-chamber electrical stimulation (DDDR). Material and methods. The study was one-center, prospective, randomized trial with consequent 74 patients inclusion, who had indications to permanent DDDR due to SSS and AF in anamnesis. Patients were randomized to DDDR group (n=36) and active MVS (n=38) group. Procedure of electrocardiostimulator (ECS) maintenance was done at 6 months and 1 year. During follow-up visits, information was saved in the ECS memory, as the data on AF burden. Primary endpoints were AF burden and time to persistent AF onset. Results. During the study, there were no significant differences in AF burden between the groups. Median of AF burden was 6,0 min/day (25- 75 percentiles: 0-42 min/day) in DDDR, and 6,0 min/day (25-75 perc.: 0-42 min/day; p=0,67) in MVS group. Persistent AF development was registered in 5 patients, of those 3 (8,6%) in DDDR and in 2 (5,3%) in MVS (HR 1,25; 95% CI 0,2-7,98; p=0,47). Medication or electrocardioversion was done for 9 (25,7%) patients from DDDR and 12 (31,6%) from MVS groups (HR 0,86, 95% CI 0,31-2,38, p=0,39). Conclusion. There was no benefit of MVS algorithms in short term period in decrease of AF burden and in its progression prevention towards persistent AF in SSS patients with the anamnesis of paroxysmal AF, comparing to standard DDDR regimen of ECS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ivanchina et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Sick sinus syndrome and atrial fibrillation (n=74). Algorithms for minimization of right-ventricular stimulation (MVS) vs. Standard bi-chamber electrical stimulation (DDDR) was evaluated on Time to persistent AF onset (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.2-7.98, p=0.47). Minimization of right-ventricular stimulation did not significantly reduce progression to persistent AF compared to standard DDDR in patients with sick sinus syndrome (HR 1.25; 95% CI 0.2-7.98; p=0.47).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: