Key result
Aggressive incremental programming of atrial anti-tachycardia pacing improved adjusted ATP-termination efficacy compared to nominal programming (54.8% vs 37.9%, P<0.05).
Why the study?
Does aggressive incremental programming of atrial anti-tachycardia pacing improve ATP efficacy and reduce atrial tachyarrhythmia burden in bradycardia-indicated patients?
Observational (n=61)
Does aggressive incremental programming of atrial anti-tachycardia pacing improve ATP efficacy and reduce atrial tachyarrhythmia burden in bradycardia-indicated patients?
Aggressive incremental programming of atrial anti-tachycardia pacing improves termination efficacy but does not reduce overall atrial tachyarrhythmia burden, which is largely driven by episodes lasting >24 hours.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Improved termination rates did not reduce tachyarrhythmia burden; hypothesis-generating for programming in observational cohorts.
AIMS: Efficacy of pace-termination of atrial arrhythmias (ATP) may depend on atrial cycle length and regularity. Whether device programming of ATP therapies can improve ATP efficacy and alter atrial tachyarrhythmia burden is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: ATP efficacy was evaluated in 61 patients (39 males; 66 +/- 10 years) with a standard indication for pacing, 95% with a history of AT/AF. Each patient was implanted with a novel DDDRP pacemaker capable of delivering ATP therapy. ATP efficacy and AT/AF frequency and burden were compared within each patient during a period of nominal ATP programming (NP) followed by a period of aggressive incremental programming (IP). Adjusted ATP-termination efficacy was higher during IP than during NP (54.8% vs 37.9%, P < 0.05). No differences in AT/AF frequency (3.3 +/- 5.9 vs 3.2 +/- 6.9 day(-1)) or burden (18 +/- 28% vs 18 +/- 29%) were observed comparing NP with IP. The majority of episodes during both the NP (81%) and IP (77%) periods terminated within 10 min. Episodes lasting 24 h or more accounted for only 0.4% of the episodes in both groups. but accounted for 38% of the average burden during NP and 51% during IP. CONCLUSIONS: Device programming of ATP therapies can influence the number of treated episodes and the efficacy of ATP therapies although arrhythmic frequency and burden may not change. Total atrial arrhythmia burden is disproportionately influenced by long (>24 h) episodes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Burkhard Hügl (2003) conducted an observational in Bradycardia with indication for pacing and history of AT/AF (n=61). Aggressive incremental programming (IP) of ATP therapies vs. Nominal ATP programming (NP) was evaluated on Adjusted ATP-termination efficacy (p=<0.05). Aggressive incremental programming of atrial anti-tachycardia pacing improved adjusted ATP-termination efficacy compared to nominal programming (54.8% vs 37.9%, P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: