Reduction in unnecessary ventricular pacing fails to affect hard clinical outcomes in patients with preserved left ventricular function: a meta-analysis
Why the study?
Do ventricular pacing reduction modalities improve hard clinical outcomes compared to standard dual-chamber pacing in adult patients with preserved left ventricular function?
Population
7 RCTs involving 4,119 adult patients with preserved left ventricular function
Comparison
Ventricular pacing reduction modalities vs Standard dual-chamber pacing (DDD)
Design
Meta-analysis
Follow-up
mean 2.5 ± 0.9 years
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
VPRM confer no hard-outcome benefit over DDD pacing; reinforces that pacing reduction alone does not alter clinical events.
Structured PICO
Do ventricular pacing reduction modalities improve hard clinical outcomes compared to standard dual-chamber pacing in adult patients with preserved left ventricular function?
P
Population
7 RCTs involving 4,119 adult patients with preserved left ventricular function
I
Intervention
Ventricular pacing reduction modalities (VPRM) (e.g., MVP, SafeR)
C
Comparator
Standard dual-chamber pacing (DDD)
O
Outcome
Incident persistent/permanent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortalityhard clinical
Although ventricular pacing reduction modalities effectively reduce ventricular pacing, they do not significantly improve hard clinical outcomes like atrial fibrillation, hospitalization, or mortality compared to standard dual-chamber pacing.
Cite This Study
Shurrab et al. (2016) studied this question.