Key result
Dual chamber minimal ventricular pacing reduced device-derived atrial fibrillation burden (12.8% vs 47.6%, P<0.001) and progression to persistent AF (9% vs 42%, P=0.004) compared to DDDR pacing.
Why the study?
Does dual chamber minimal ventricular pacing reduce atrial fibrillation burden and progression to persistent AF in patients with paroxysmal AF requiring a pacemaker?
RCT (n=66)
randomized
Does dual chamber minimal ventricular pacing reduce atrial fibrillation burden and progression to persistent AF in patients with paroxysmal AF requiring a pacemaker?
Minimal ventricular pacing algorithms significantly reduce atrial fibrillation burden and progression to persistent AF compared to conventional dual chamber pacing in patients with paroxysmal AF.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Minimizing ventricular pacing may reduce AF burden and progression in paroxysmal AF; leaves open need for larger confirmatory trials.
AIMS: In patients requiring permanent pacemaker implantation for sinus node disease (SND) or atrioventricular (AV) block, right ventricular (RV) pacing has been demonstrated to increase the risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF). The effects of RV pacing in patients with paroxysmal AF are less well defined. Short- and medium-term studies have suggested no significant correlation between RV pacing and atrial fibrillation burden (AFB) measurement; we sought to assess for an effect in the long-term. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were randomized to receive either conventional dual chamber pacing (DDDR, n = 33), or dual chamber minimal ventricular pacing (MinVP, n = 33), for a period of at least 1 year. Patients were reviewed every 6 months and all pacemaker data were downloaded. The primary outcome measures were device-derived AFB and progression to persistent AF. The mean duration of study follow-up was 1.4 ± 0.6 years. Mean ventricular pacing was less in the MinVP cohort compared with the DDDR cohort (5.8 vs. 74.0%, P < 0.001). At follow-up, the device-derived AFB was significantly lower in the MinVP cohort when compared with the DDDR cohort (12.8 ± 15.3% vs. DDDR 47.6 ± 42.2%, P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to onset of persistent AF showed significant reductions in the rates of persistent AF for MinVP pacing (9%) when compared with conventional DDDR pacing (42%), P = 0.004. CONCLUSION: Right ventricular pacing induces increased AFB in patients with paroxysmal AF in the long term. Dual chamber MinVP algorithms result in reduced AFB and reduced disease progression from paroxysmal to persistent AF in the long term.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Veasey et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=66). Dual chamber minimal ventricular pacing (MinVP) vs. Conventional dual chamber pacing (DDDR) was evaluated on Progression to persistent AF (p=0.004). Dual chamber minimal ventricular pacing reduced device-derived atrial fibrillation burden (12.8% vs 47.6%, P<0.001) and progression to persistent AF (9% vs 42%, P=0.004) compared to DDDR pacing.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: