Key result
Atrial antitachycardia pacing alone or combined with pace prevention algorithms did not suppress atrial fibrillation burden over 3 years compared with conventional DDD/R pacing.
Why the study?
Do atrial antitachycardia pacing and atrial pace prevention algorithms reduce atrial fibrillation burden in patients with AT/AF following pacemaker insertion?
Population
71 patients with atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation (AT/AF) following pacemaker insertion
Comparison
DDD/R pacing plus atrial antitachycardia pacing… vs Conventional dual-chamber (DDD/R) pacing
Design
RCT, randomized to DDD/R pacing, DDD/R plus ATP pacing, or DDD/R plus ATP and…
Follow-up
3 years
Authors
Loading...
Long-term atrial ATP algorithms show no AT/AF suppression; leaves open whether selected patients may benefit in future RCTs.
RCT (n=71)
Do atrial antitachycardia pacing and atrial pace prevention algorithms reduce atrial fibrillation burden in patients with AT/AF following pacemaker insertion?
Atrial antitachycardia pacing and pace prevention algorithms do not suppress AT/AF burden over long-term follow-up compared to conventional DDD/R pacing.
Gillis et al. (2009) conducted an RCT in Atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation (n=71). Atrial antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and ATP + Prevention algorithms vs. Conventional DDD/R pacing was evaluated on Atrial tachycardia/AF burden. Atrial antitachycardia pacing alone or combined with pace prevention algorithms did not suppress atrial fibrillation burden over 3 years compared with conventional DDD/R pacing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: