Key result
The VIP algorithm significantly reduced right ventricular pacing at 12 months vs control in both compromised (39% vs 97%, p=0.0004) and intact AVC patients (15% vs 68
Why the study?
Do Ventricular Intrinsic Preference (VIP) and Ventricular AutoCapture (VAC) algorithms reduce right ventricular pacing in patients with dual chamber pacemakers?
RCT (n=80)
1:1
Yes
Do Ventricular Intrinsic Preference (VIP) and Ventricular AutoCapture (VAC) algorithms reduce right ventricular pacing in patients with dual chamber pacemakers?
Absolute Event Rate: 39% vs 97%
p-value: p=0.0004
Activation of Ventricular Intrinsic Preference and Ventricular AutoCapture algorithms significantly reduces unnecessary right ventricular pacing and in-clinic data collection time in patients with dual chamber pacemakers.
Supports VIP use to minimize RV pacing in dual-chamber pacemakers; extends RCT evidence to both compromised and intact AVC subgroups.
BACKGROUND: Several past clinical studies have demonstrated that frequent and unnecessary right ventricular pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome and compromised atrio-ventricular conduction (AVC) produces long-term adverse effects. The safety and efficacy of two pacemaker algorithms, Ventricular Intrinsic Preference™ (VIP) and Ventricular AutoCapture (VAC), were evaluated in a multi-center study in pacemaker patients. METHODS: We evaluated 80 patients across 10 centers in India. Patients were enrolled within 15 days of dual chamber pacemaker (DDDR) implantation, and within 45 days thereafter were classified to either a compromised AVC (cAVC) arm or an intact AVC (iAVC) arm based on intrinsic paced/sensed (AV/PV) delays. In each arm, patients were then randomized (1:1) into the following groups: VIP OFF and VAC OFF (Control group; CG), or VIP ON and VAC ON (Treatment Group; TG). Subsequently, the AV/PV delays in the CG groups were mandatorily programmed at 180/150 ms, and to up to 350 ms in the TG groups. The percentage of right ventricular pacing (%RVp) evaluated at 12-month post-implantation follow-ups were compared between the two groups in each arm. Additionally, in-clinic time required for collecting device data was compared between patients programmed with the automated AutoCapture algorithm activated (VAC ON) vs. the manually programmed method (VAC OFF). RESULTS: Patients randomized to the TG with the VIP algorithm activated exhibited a significantly lower %RVp at 12 months than those in the CG in both the cAVC arm (39±41% vs. 97±3%; p=0.0004) and the iAVC arm (15±25% vs. 68±39%; p=0.0067). In-clinic time required to collect device data was less in patients with the VAC algorithm activated. No device-related adverse events were reported during the year-long study period. CONCLUSIONS: In our study cohort, the use of the VIP algorithm significantly reduced the %RVp, while the VAC algorithm reduced in-clinic time needed to collect device data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yadav et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in Pacemaker patients (n=80). Ventricular Intrinsic Preference (VIP) and Ventricular AutoCapture (VAC) algorithms ON vs. VIP OFF and VAC OFF was evaluated on Percentage of right ventricular pacing (%RVp) at 12 months (compromised AVC arm) (p=0.0004). The VIP algorithm significantly reduced right ventricular pacing at 12 months vs control in both compromised (39% vs 97%, p=0.0004) and intact AVC patients (15% vs 68.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: