Key result
Pacing therapy, including physiological and novel site pacing, may reduce atrial fibrillation burden in patients with bradycardia, though patient selection remains challenging.
Why the study?
Does physiological and novel site pacing prevent atrial fibrillation in patients with bradycardia requiring a pacemaker?
Does physiological and novel site pacing prevent atrial fibrillation in patients with bradycardia requiring a pacemaker?
Physiological and novel pacing strategies may help prevent atrial fibrillation in patients requiring pacemakers for bradycardia, but tailored patient selection is necessary.
Supports physiological/novel pacing to lower AF burden in bradycardia; leaves open optimal selection and needs prospective trials.
Nonpharmacological therapy is being evaluated for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF). Pacing has been proposed as a one of the option to prevent AF. In patients with bradycardia and requiring pacemaker, physiological pacing such as dual chamber pacing or atrial pacing has an advantage against ventricular pacing in prevention AF. Pacing from novel site like the dual‐site atrium, biatrial, Bachman, and low sepatl pacing may reduce AF burden and new anti‐AF pacemakers with atrial prevention algorithm may decrease AF further. However, selecting the appropriate patients and adopting tailored‐therapy for individual patient is likely to remain one of the difficulties in achieving an advantage. This review discusses the current status of pacing therapy for the prevention of AF. It also discusses the some of merits and limitations of pacing therapy for the treatment of AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noboru Mizutani (2005) conducted a review in Atrial fibrillation. Pacing therapy (physiological, novel site, and anti-AF algorithms) vs. Ventricular pacing was evaluated on Prevention of atrial fibrillation. Pacing therapy, including physiological and novel site pacing, may reduce atrial fibrillation burden in patients with bradycardia, though patient selection remains challenging.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: