Key result
Atrial rate-adaptive pacing did not improve peak oxygen consumption compared to ventricular demand pacing in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (23.7 vs 23.8 mL/kg/min; P=0.8).
Why the study?
Does atrial rate-adaptive pacing improve peak oxygen consumption compared to ventricular backup pacing in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and no pacing indications?
Population
10 dual-chamber implantable defibrillator recipients without pacing indications and an ejection fraction…
Comparison
Atrial rate-adaptive pacing mode during… vs Ventricular demand pacing mode during…
Design
RCT, Randomized, single-crossover design, Blinded
Authors
Loading...
No exercise benefit from atrial rate-adaptive pacing; challenges rate-adaptive superiority in LV dysfunction with ICDs.
RCT (n=10)
blinded
randomized
Does atrial rate-adaptive pacing improve peak oxygen consumption compared to ventricular backup pacing in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and no pacing indications?
Absolute Event Rate: 23.7% vs 23.8%
p-value: p=0.8
In patients with left ventricular dysfunction and an ICD without pacing indications, atrial rate-adaptive pacing does not improve exercise capacity compared to ventricular backup pacing.
PASSMAN et al. (2008) conducted an RCT in left ventricular dysfunction (n=10). Atrial rate-adaptive pacing (AAIR) vs. Ventricular demand pacing (VVI) was evaluated on change in peak oxygen consumption (VO(2)) (p=0.8). Atrial rate-adaptive pacing did not improve peak oxygen consumption compared to ventricular demand pacing in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (23.7 vs 23.8 mL/kg/min; P=0.8).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: