Aggressive incremental programming of atrial anti-tachycardia pacing improved adjusted ATP-termination efficacy compared to nominal programming (54.8% vs 37.9%, P<0.05).
Observational (n=61)
Does aggressive incremental programming of atrial anti-tachycardia pacing improve ATP efficacy and reduce atrial tachyarrhythmia burden in bradycardia-indicated patients?
Aggressive incremental programming of atrial anti-tachycardia pacing improves termination efficacy but does not reduce overall atrial tachyarrhythmia burden, which is largely driven by episodes lasting >24 hours.
Absolute Event Rate: 54.8% vs 37.9%
p-value: p=<0.05
AIMS: Efficacy of pace-termination of atrial arrhythmias (ATP) may depend on atrial cycle length and regularity. Whether device programming of ATP therapies can improve ATP efficacy and alter atrial tachyarrhythmia burden is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: ATP efficacy was evaluated in 61 patients (39 males; 66 +/- 10 years) with a standard indication for pacing, 95% with a history of AT/AF. Each patient was implanted with a novel DDDRP pacemaker capable of delivering ATP therapy. ATP efficacy and AT/AF frequency and burden were compared within each patient during a period of nominal ATP programming (NP) followed by a period of aggressive incremental programming (IP). Adjusted ATP-termination efficacy was higher during IP than during NP (54.8% vs 37.9%, P 24 h) episodes.
Burkhard Hügl (Wed,) conducted a observational in Bradycardia with indication for pacing and history of AT/AF (n=61). Aggressive incremental programming (IP) of ATP therapies vs. Nominal ATP programming (NP) was evaluated on Adjusted ATP-termination efficacy (p=<0.05). Aggressive incremental programming of atrial anti-tachycardia pacing improved adjusted ATP-termination efficacy compared to nominal programming (54.8% vs 37.9%, P<0.05).