Randomized Crossover Comparison of DDDR Versus VDD Pacing After Atrioventricular Junction Ablation for Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation
Why the study?
Does DDDR pacing compared with VDD pacing prevent atrial fibrillation in patients after atrioventricular junction ablation?
Population
67 patients after atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation in the absence of antiarrhythmic drug therapy
Comparison
DDDR pacing for 6 months vs VDD pacing for 6 months
Design
RCT, Randomized to DDDR pacing (n=33) or to VDD pacing (n=34) before crossover
Follow-up
6 months per pacing mode (1 year total)
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
DDDR pacing confers no AF prevention benefit over VDD after AVJ ablation; challenges preference for dual-chamber devices in this population.
Structured PICO
Does DDDR pacing compared with VDD pacing prevent atrial fibrillation in patients after atrioventricular junction ablation?
P
Population
67 patients after atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation in the absence of antiarrhythmic drug therapy
I
Intervention
DDDR pacing for 6 months
C
Comparator
VDD pacing for 6 months
O
Outcome
Time to first recurrence of sustained AF (duration >5 minutes), total AF burden, and the development of permanent AFhard clinical
DDDR pacing does not prevent paroxysmal AF compared to VDD pacing over the long term in patients after total AV junction ablation without antiarrhythmic drugs.
Cite This Study
Gillis et al. (2000) studied this question.