Key result
Atrial preventive pacing using three algorithms reduced the mean number of atrial tachyarrhythmia episodes per patient per day from 7.67 to 1.68 (P=0.04), but did not reduce total time in AT.
Why the study?
Does atrial preventive pacing using three combined algorithms reduce the number and duration of atrial tachyarrhythmia episodes in patients with conventional pacing indications and paroxysmal AT?
Observational (n=31)
Does atrial preventive pacing using three combined algorithms reduce the number and duration of atrial tachyarrhythmia episodes in patients with conventional pacing indications and paroxysmal AT?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.68% vs 7.67%
p-value: p=0.04
Atrial preventive pacing using three combined algorithms reduces the frequency of atrial tachyarrhythmia episodes but does not significantly decrease the total time spent in arrhythmia.
May reduce AT episode frequency without lowering burden in paced patients; leaves open the role of preventive algorithms.
UNLABELLED: Pacing algorithms for prevention of atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) are under clinical evaluation. The present study prospectively evaluated the efficacy of three simultaneously active algorithms for AT prevention and aimed at identifying patients in whom atrial preventive pacing (APP) may be particularly successful. METHODS: In 31 patients with conventional pacing indications and paroxysmal AT, a DDDRP pacing system was implanted, which stores 35 AT episodes with atrial electrograms and marker annotations. Counters and stored AT episodes were retrieved 30 days after implant. APP algorithms (atrial preference pacing, atrial rate stabilization, postmode switching overdrive) were activated. Counters and stored AT episodes were again retrieved 60 days later. The number and duration of AT episodes was measured. Several clinical variables were examined with respect to their ability to identify candidates for APP. RESULTS: During APP, the mean number of AT episodes/patient/day decreased from 7.67 to 1.68 (P = 0.04). However, time in AT was not significantly reduced (9.45% versus 10.41%). APP decreased the number of episodes/day in 11 patients and increased it in 9 patients. No clinical parameters predicting APP success was identified. CONCLUSIONS: APP using three algorithms significantly reduced the mean number of AT episodes/patient/day. However, the time during which patients were in AT was not reduced. No clinical variable predicted the success or failure of APP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Israel et al. (2000) conducted an observational in Paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmia (n=31). Atrial preventive pacing (APP) algorithms vs. Baseline (before APP activation) was evaluated on Mean number of AT episodes/patient/day (p=0.04). Atrial preventive pacing using three algorithms reduced the mean number of atrial tachyarrhythmia episodes per patient per day from 7.67 to 1.68 (P=0.04), but did not reduce total time in AT.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: