Why the study?
Does atrioventricular node ablation and implantation of a mode switching dual chamber pacemaker improve quality of life, exercise capacity, and left ventricular systolic function in patients with drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Does atrioventricular node ablation and implantation of a mode switching dual chamber pacemaker improve quality of life, exercise capacity, and left ventricular systolic function in patients with drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Atrioventricular node ablation combined with a mode-switching dual-chamber pacemaker improves quality of life and reduces antiarrhythmic drug burden in patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
May improve wellbeing and reduce drug use in refractory paroxysmal AF; hypothesis-generating and leaves open effects on exercise capacity and LV function.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of atrioventricular node ablation and implantation of a dual chamber, mode switching pacemaker on quality of life, exercise capacity, and left ventricular systolic function in patients with drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. PATIENTS: 18 consecutive patients with drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Quality of life was assessed before and after the procedure using the psychological general wellbeing index (PGWB), the McMaster health index (MHI), and a visual analogue scale for cardiac symptoms. Nine of the patients also underwent symptom limited exercise tests and echocardiography to assess left ventricular systolic function. RESULTS: The procedure allowed a reduction in antiarrhythmic drug treatment (p < 0.01). PGWB and symptom scores improved (p < 0.01) but the MHI score did not change. Left ventricular systolic function and exercise capacity were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Atrioventricular node ablation and implantation of a DDDR/MS pacemaker is effective treatment for refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, producing improved quality of life while allowing a reduction in drug burden. The popularity of the treatment is justified, but further studies are needed to determine optimum timing of intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marshall et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: