Key result
Physiological pacing, novel pacing sites, and anti-AF algorithms may reduce atrial fibrillation burden in patients with bradycardia requiring pacemakers.
Why the study?
Does pacing therapy prevent atrial fibrillation in patients with bradycardia requiring a pacemaker?
Does pacing therapy prevent atrial fibrillation in patients with bradycardia requiring a pacemaker?
Physiological pacing and novel pacing strategies may help prevent atrial fibrillation in patients requiring pacemakers, though tailored patient selection remains challenging.
May inform device selection in bradycardia; leaves open confirmation of AF reduction in randomized 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 vs. Ventricular pacing was evaluated. Physiological pacing, novel pacing sites, and anti-AF algorithms may reduce atrial fibrillation burden in patients with bradycardia requiring pacemakers.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: