Key result
Automatic atrial overdrive pacing fails to reduce AF burden in patients with paroxysmal AF.
Why the study?
The efficacy of site-specific pacing combined with an automatic atrial overdrive algorithm and antiarrhythmic drugs on reducing paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in pacemaker patients was unknown.
Does an automatic atrial overdrive pacing algorithm reduce atrial fibrillation burden in patients with a pacemaker indication and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=273)
Single-blind
Does an automatic atrial overdrive pacing algorithm reduce atrial fibrillation burden in patients with a pacemaker indication and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Automatic atrial overdrive pacing does not reduce atrial fibrillation burden in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and a standard pacemaker indication.
Automatic atrial overdrive pacing should not yet alter practice; leaves open whether alternative algorithms reduce AF burden in pacemaker patients.
AIMS: Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is frequently encountered in pacemaker patients, most commonly in sick sinus syndrome. The combination of site-specific pacing in conjunction with an overdrive algorithm combined with antiarrhythmic drugs on the incidence of PAF in patients with a conventional indication for pacing is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with pacemaker indication and PAF received a DDDR-pacemaker, which included an automatic atrial overdrive (AO) algorithm. The atrial lead was implanted in either the right atrial appendage (RAA) (n = 83) or the right low-atrial septum (LAS) (n = 94). The algorithm was switched on or off in a 3 month, single blind crossover design and antiarrhythmic drugs were kept stable. A control group of 96 patients (LAS, n = 14; RAA, n = 84) without PAF served as controls to assess any proarrhythmic effect of overdrive pacing. Atrial fibrillation (AF) burden defined as cumulative time in mode switch was not reduced during automatic AO from either the RAA or from the LAS. The reduction was not effective both for AF of short (<24 h) and long (> or =24 h) duration. There was no atrial proarrhythmia induced by the overdrive algorithm in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: We could not demonstrate a reduction of AF burden defined as cumulative time in AF by the AO algorithm, in patients who are paced for standard indications and PAF, neither from the RAA nor from the LAS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Voogt et al. (2007) conducted an RCT in Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and pacemaker indication (n=273). Automatic atrial overdrive (AO) algorithm vs. Algorithm switched off was evaluated on Atrial fibrillation (AF) burden defined as cumulative time in mode switch. Automatic atrial overdrive pacing did not reduce atrial fibrillation burden in patients with a pacemaker indication and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: