Key result
Managed Ventricular Pacing reduced median ventricular pacing compared to Search AV+ across all AV block categories except persistent third-degree block (e.g., 1AVB: 0.9% vs 80.6%, P<0.0001).
Why the study?
Does the MVP algorithm reduce the percentage of ventricular pacing compared to the SAV+ algorithm in pacemaker patients?
Cohort (n=322)
Does the MVP algorithm reduce the percentage of ventricular pacing compared to the SAV+ algorithm in pacemaker patients?
The MVP algorithm is more effective than SAV+ at reducing unnecessary ventricular pacing in pacemaker patients with intact or mildly impaired AV conduction.
BACKGROUND: Managed Ventricular Pacing (MVP) and Search AV+ (SAV+) are two pacing algorithms designed to reduce ventricular pacing. MVP promotes conduction by operating in AAI/R mode with backup ventricular pacing during atrioventricular block (AVB). SAV+ operates in DDD/R mode with a nominal AV extension of 290 ms during atrial sensing and 320 ms during atrial pacing. The reduction in ventricular pacing was compared with these two algorithms in pacemaker patients. METHODS: The EnRhythm and EnPulse clinical studies assessed the percentage of ventricular pacing (%VP) after 1 month. Each patient's AVB status was assigned using the following hierarchical categories: persistent third-degree AVB (p3AVB), episodic third-degree AVB (e3AVB), second-degree AVB (2AVB), first-degree AVB (1AVB), and no AVB (nAVB). The%VP was tabulated for each AVB status category. RESULTS: Data were available from 322 patients of whom 129 received DDD(R) pacing with the MVP algorithm activated and 193 patients with DDD(R) pacing and the SAV+ function activated, each for a month period. MVP resulted in a significantly lower median%VP than SAV+ in all AVB categories except for p3AVB: nAVB (0.3 vs 2.9, P < 0.0001), 1AVB (0.9% vs 80.6%, P < 0.0001), 2AVB (37.6 vs 99.3, P< 0.002), e3AVB (1.2 vs 42.2, P = 0.02), p3AVB (98.9 vs 100, P = 1.00). CONCLUSION: MVP resulted in a greater reduction in%VP than SAV+ across all patient groups except persistent third-degree AV block. The greatest reduction in%VP was observed in patients with mildly impaired AV conduction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pürerfellner et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in Pacemaker patients (n=322). Managed Ventricular Pacing (MVP) vs. Search AV+ (SAV+) was evaluated on Percentage of ventricular pacing (%VP) after 1 month. Managed Ventricular Pacing reduced median ventricular pacing compared to Search AV+ across all AV block categories except persistent third-degree block (e.g., 1AVB: 0.9% vs 80.6%, P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: