Key result
Managed Ventricular Pacing (MVP) reduced the mean cumulative percentage of ventricular pacing compared to DDD/R mode in patients with dual chamber ICDs.
Why the study?
Does a managed ventricular pacing mode (MVP) reduce cumulative percentage ventricular pacing compared to DDD/R mode in patients with dual chamber ICDs?
RCT (n=181)
randomized crossover
Yes
Does a managed ventricular pacing mode (MVP) reduce cumulative percentage ventricular pacing compared to DDD/R mode in patients with dual chamber ICDs?
The MVP mode safely and significantly reduces unnecessary right ventricular pacing compared to conventional DDD/R mode in patients with dual chamber ICDs.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
MVP should be prioritized over DDD/R in dual-chamber ICD patients to minimize RV pacing; confirms benefit of atrial-preferential algorithms.
BACKGROUND: Ventricular desynchronization caused by right ventricular pacing may impair ventricular function and increase risk of heart failure (CHF), atrial fibrillation (AF), and death. Conventional DDD/R mode often results in high cumulative percentage ventricular pacing (Cum%VP). We hypothesized that a new managed ventricular pacing mode (MVP) would safely provide AAI/R pacing with ventricular monitoring and DDD/R during AV block (AVB) and reduce Cum%VP compared to DDD/R. METHODS: MVP RAMware was downloaded in 181 patients with Marquis DR ICDs. Patients were initially randomized to either MVP or DDD/R for 1 month, then crossed over to the opposite mode for 1 month. ICD diagnostics were analyzed for cumulative percentage atrial pacing (Cum%AP), Cum%VP, and duration of DDD/R pacing for spontaneous AVB. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics included age 66 +/- 12 years, EF 36 +/- 14%, and NYHA Class II-III 36%. Baseline PR interval was 190 +/- 53 msec and programmed AV intervals (DDD/R) were 216 +/- 50 (paced)/189 +/- 53 (sensed) msec. Mean Cum%VP was significantly lower in MVP versus DDD/R (4.1 +/- 16.3 vs 73.8 +/- 32.5, P < 0.0001). The median absolute and relative reductions in Cum%VP during MVP were 85.0 and 99.9, respectively. Mean Cum%AP was not different between MVP versus DDD/R (48.7 +/- 38.5 vs 47.3 +/- 38.4, P = 0.83). During MVP overall time spent in AAI/R was 89.6% (intrinsic conduction), DDD/R 6.7% (intermittent AVB), and DDI/R 3.7% (AF). No adverse events were attributed to MVP. CONCLUSIONS: MVP safely achieves functional atrial pacing by limiting ventricular pacing to periods of intermittent AVB and AF in ICD patients, significantly reducing Cum%VP compared to DDD/R. MVP is a universal pacing mode that adapts to AVB and AF, providing both atrial pacing and ventricular pacing support when needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sweeney et al. (2005) conducted an RCT in Patients with Marquis DR ICDs (n=181). Managed Ventricular Pacing Mode (MVP) vs. DDD/R mode was evaluated on cumulative percentage ventricular pacing (Cum%VP) (p=<0.0001). Managed Ventricular Pacing (MVP) reduced the mean cumulative percentage of ventricular pacing compared to DDD/R mode in patients with dual chamber ICDs.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: