Is Mode Switching Beneficial? A Randomized Study in Patients With Paroxysmal Atrial Tachyarrhythmias

OBJECTIVES: We sought 1) to compare three pacing modalities-DDDR with mode switching (DM), DDDR with conventional upper rate behavior (DR) and VVIR (VR)-in patients with a history of atrial tachyarrhythmias, and 2) to assess the efficacy of six mode-switching algorithms. BACKGROUND: A history of atrial tachyarrhythmias has been a relative contraindication to dual-chamber pacing. Several mode-switching algorithms have recently been developed to prevent rapid tracking of atrial tachyarrhythmias. METHODS: Forty-eight patients (mean age 64 years, 58% male) with a history of atrial tachyarrhythmias and heart block had a DM pacemaker implanted. Pacemakers were programmed to DM, DR and VR modes for 4 weeks each in a randomized crossover design. All subjects used a patient-activated electrocardiographic (ECG) recorder throughout the study and additionally underwent ambulatory ECG monitoring and a treadmill exercise test in each mode. They completed three symptom questionnaires at the end of each pacing period. At the end of the study, patients chose their preferred pacing period. RESULTS: DM was significantly better than VR mode objectively (exercise time DM 8.1 min, VR 7.0 min, p < 0.01) and subjectively (perceived well-being DM 69, VR 51, p < 0.001; functional class DM 2.2, VR 2.5, p < 0.05; subjective symptom score DM 21.2, VR 26.8, p = 0.01). Patient-perceived well-being was significantly better with DM than with DR mode (DM 69, DR 60, p = 0.02). DM mode was the preferred pacing period (DM 51%, DR 14%, VR 14%). Early termination of pacing because of adverse symptoms was requested by 33% of patients during VR, 19% during DR but only 3% during DM mode. A higher proportion of patients with a fast mode-switching device preferred DM mode (fast 55%, slow 49%), whereas no patients with a fast mode-switching device chose VR as the preferred mode (fast 0%, slow 19%). In the subgroup of patients who had had atrioventricular node ablation, DM was also preferred to VR mode (DM 53%, VR 27%). Overall, there were only two cases of inappropriate mode switching and one case of inappropriate tracking of an atrial tachyarrhythmia. CONCLUSIONS: DM is the pacing mode of choice of patients with paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmias. With optimal programming, inappropriate mode switching and tracking of atrial tachyarrhythmias was very uncommon.