Key result
Cardiac resynchronization therapy reduced the risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation compared to DDD-VPA (HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.13-0.98; P=0.046) in patients with prolonged PR interval.
Why the study?
A prolonged PR interval is associated with increased mortality and higher AF risk, but whether CRT outperforms DDD pacing with RV pacing avoidance algorithms in these patients was untested.
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy improve systolic and diastolic function and prevent new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients with ejection fraction >35%, indication for pacing, and PR interval ≥220 ms?
RCT (n=82)
randomly assigned
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy improve systolic and diastolic function and prevent new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients with ejection fraction >35%, indication for pacing, and PR interval ≥220 ms?
In patients with preserved ejection fraction, indication for pacing, and prolonged PR interval, CRT improves diastolic function and reduces the risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation compared to conventional dual-chamber pacing at 12 months.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CRT reduces new-onset AF risk versus DDD pacing in prolonged PR; extends CRT benefits to preserved-EF patients.
AIMS: A prolonged PR interval is known to be associated with increased mortality and a higher risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF). We tested the hypothesis that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is superior to conventional dual-chamber pacing with algorithms for right ventricular pacing avoidance (DDD-VPA) in preserving systolic and diastolic function and in preventing new-onset AF in patients with normal systolic function, indication for pacing and prolonged atrioventricular conduction (PR interval ≥220 ms). METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 82 patients with ejection fraction >35%, indication for pacing and PR interval ≥220 ms to CRT or to DDD-VPA. On 12-month follow-up examination, the study and control arms did not differ in terms of left ventricular end-systolic volume (44 ± 17 mL vs. 47 ± 16 mL, P = 0.511) or ejection fraction (55 ± 6% vs. 57 ± 8%, P = 0.291). The E to A mitral wave amplitude ratio was higher in the CRT arm (1.3 ± 1.3 vs. 0.8 ± 0.4, P = 0.046) and the E wave deceleration time was longer (262 ± 83 ms vs. 205 ± 51 ms, P = 0.027). Left atrial volume was smaller in the CRT arm (64 ± 17 mL vs. 84 ± 25 mL, P = 0.035). Moreover, the functional class was lower in CRT patients (1.4 ± 0.6 vs. 1.8 ± 0.5, P = 0.010). During follow-up, CRT was associated with a lower risk of new-onset AF [hazard ratio = 0.37 (0.13-0.98), P = 0.046]. CONCLUSION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy proved superior to DDD-VPA in terms of better diastolic function, less left atrial enlargement and lower risk of new-onset AF, at 12 months. These data need to be confirmed in a larger trial with longer follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ Identifier: NCT02150538.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Botto et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Prolonged atrioventricular interval (n=82). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) vs. Conventional dual-chamber pacing with algorithms for right ventricular pacing avoidance (DDD-VPA) was evaluated on New-onset atrial fibrillation (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13-0.98, p=0.046). Cardiac resynchronization therapy reduced the risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation compared to DDD-VPA (HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.13-0.98; P=0.046) in patients with prolonged PR interval.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: