Combined efficacy of atrial septal lead placement and atrial pacing algorithms for prevention of paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmia

INTRODUCTION: The combined role of atrial septal lead location and atrial pacing algorithms in the prevention of atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT/AF), including both atrial fibrillation and flutter, is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that atrial prevention pacing algorithms could decrease AT/AF frequency in patients with atrial septal leads, bradycardia, and paroxysmal AT/AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 298 patients (age 70 +/- 10 years; 61% male) from 35 centers were implanted with a DDDRP pacing system including three AT/AF prevention pacing algorithms. Lead site was randomized at implant to right atrial septal or nonseptal. Patients were randomized 1 month postimplant to AT/AF prevention ON or OFF for 3 months and then crossed over for 3 months. Patients logged symptomatic AT/AF episodes via a manual activator. Prevention efficacy was evaluated based on intention-to-treat in 277 patients (138 septal) with complete follow-up. No changes in device-recorded AT/AF frequency or burden were observed with algorithms OFF versus ON or between patients randomized to septal versus nonseptal lead location. Analysis of other secondary outcomes revealed that AT/AF prevention pacing resulted in decreased atrial premature contractions in both the septal (1.9 [0.2-8.7] vs 3.3 [0.3-10.6]x 103/day; P < 0.01) and nonseptal groups (0.9 [0.2-3.3] vs 1.3 [0.3-5.5]x 103/day; P < 0.001). Patients with septal leads had fewer symptomatic AT/AF episodes ON versus OFF (1.4 +/- 3.0 vs 2.5 +/- 5.2/month, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The combination of three atrial prevention pacing algorithms did not decrease device classified atrial tachyarrhythmia frequency or burden during a 3-month cross-over period in bradycardic patients and septal or nonseptal atrial pacing leads. Prevention pacing was associated with decreased frequency of premature atrial contractions and with decreased symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia frequency in patients with atrial septal leads.     

The effect of atrial pacing therapies on atrial tachyarrhythmia burden and frequency: results of a randomized trial in patients with bradycardia and atrial tachyarrhythmias

OBJECTIVES: The Atrial Therapy Efficacy and Safety Trial (ATTEST) was a prospective, randomized study to evaluate preventive pacing and antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial tachycardia (AT). BACKGROUND: The effect of the combination of atrial prevention and termination algorithms on AT/AF burden and frequency in pacemaker patients is unknown. METHODS: A DDDRP pacemaker (AT500, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) with three atrial preventive pacing algorithms and two ATP algorithms was implanted in 368 patients. Patients were randomized one-month post-implant to all prevention and ATP therapies ON or OFF and followed for three months. The OFF group had DDDR pacing at a lower programmed rate of 60 ppm. The AT/AF burden and frequency were determined from daily device counters in 324 patients treated according to protocol. RESULTS: In 17,018 episodes with stored electrograms, appropriate detection was confirmed in 17,004 (99.9%). The median percentage of atrial pacing was 98% in the ON group versus 75% in the OFF group (p < 0.001). Using device-defined criteria for successful termination, ATP terminated 8,590 (54%) of 15,789 treated episodes. The median AT/AF burden during the three-month study period was 4.2 h/month ON versus 1.1 h/month OFF (p = 0.20). The median AT/AF frequency was 1.3 episodes/month ON versus 1.2 episodes/month OFF (p = 0.65). System-related, complication-free survival at four months was 90.2% (Kaplan-Meier estimate). CONCLUSIONS: This DDDRP pacemaker is safe, has accurate AT/AF detection, and provides ATP with 54% efficacy as defined by the device. The atrial prevention and termination therapies combined did not reduce AT/AF burden or frequency in this patient population.     

The Impact of Atrial Prevention and Termination Therapies on Atrial Tachyarrhythmia Burden in Patients Receiving a Dual-Chamber Defibrillator for Ventricular Arrhythmias

INTRODUCTION: This prospective, multicenter, randomized trial evaluated the effects of atrial prevention and termination therapies on atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) burden in patients with a standard indication for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS: A Jewel AF or GEM III AT ICD was implanted in 451 patients. At 1-month post-implant, patients were randomized to atrial prevention and termination therapies ON ( n = 199) or OFF ( n = 206) and followed for 6 additional months. Automatic atrial shocks were enabled in only 14% of the ON group. The follow-up time after randomization was 6.9 +/- 2.4 months ON versus 6.8 +/- 2.3 months OFF. RESULTS: There were 126/405 (31.1%) patients who had AT/AF episodes during follow-up. Only four patients received a shock to treat ATA's during follow-up. The median ATA burden was 0 hours/month in both the ON and OFF groups ( P = 0.40). The mean ATA burden was 4.3 +/- 20.0 hours/month ON versus 9.0 +/- 50.0 hours/month OFF ( P = 0.11). In a subgroup of 192 patients with a history of ATA's, the median burden was 0 hours/month in the both groups ( P = 0.23). However, the mean burden in this subgroup was 7.6 +/- 27.1 hours/month ON versus 19.2 +/- 73.7 hours/month OFF ( P = 0.056). CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving an ICD for ventricular arrhythmias, no significant change in ATA burden was observed when atrial prevention and termination therapies were enabled. This may have been due to the low ATA burden in this population. In a subgroup of patients with history of ATA's, there was a trend towards a reduction in mean burden.     

Right atrial preventive and antitachycardia pacing for prevention of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients without bradycardia: a randomized study.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy of preventive and antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) without bradyarrhythmias. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this randomized cross-over pilot study, we randomized 38 symptomatic paroxysmal AF patients 'without' bradyarrhythmias to atrial pacing lower rate 70 ppm and prevention and ATP therapies ON or to atrial pacing lower rate 34 ppm and prevention and ATP therapies OFF during 12 weeks with a 4 week washout period in between. The atrial lead was preferably placed in the inter-atrial septum. Antiarrhythmic drugs were continued during the study. Primary endpoint was AF burden. Mean age was 62 +/- 9 years and 27 (71%) patients had lone AF. Septal lead placement was accomplished in 26 (68%) patients. During the treatment ON, there was a trend for AF burden reduction [from median 3.3% (1.0-15.2) to 2.4% (0.2-12.2), P = 0.06, reduction 27%]. If septal lead placement was accomplished, AF burden reduction was statistically significant [44% reduction, from median 2.5% (1.0-8.0) to 1.4% (0.2-8.4), P = 0.03]. Quality of life and symptoms did not change, also not in the septal group. CONCLUSION: A hybrid therapy of preventive and ATP pacing and antiarrhythmic drugs may significantly reduce but not abolish AF burden if septal pacing is realized.     

Novel electrophysiologic parameter of dispersion of atrial repolarization: comparison of different atrial pacing methods

INTRODUCTION: Heterogeneity of ventricular repolarization plays a major role in reentrant tachyarrhythmias in cardiac tissue. However, the role of atrial repolarization added activation time (AT) to refractoriness in atrial vulnerability has not been investigated in detail. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 34 patients: 18 with atrial fibrillation (AF) and 16 without AF (control group). The effective refractory periods (ERPs) in the right atrial appendage, low lateral right atrium, high right septum, and distal coronary sinus, and ATs from P wave onset to each electrogram during sinus rhythm and right atrial appendage, low lateral right atrial, high right septal, distal coronary sinus, and biatrial pacing were measured. Atrial recovery time, defined as the sum of AT and ERP, and its dispersions during sinus rhythm, right atrial appendage, low lateral right atrial, high right septal, distal coronary sinus, and biatrial pacing were calculated. Both ERP dispersion and atrial recovery time dispersion during sinus rhythm were significantly greater in the AF group than in the control group. Atrial recovery time dispersion during distal coronary sinus, high right septal, or biatrial pacing was significantly smaller than that during right atrial appendage or low lateral right atrial pacing in each group. In particular, atrial recovery time dispersion during distal coronary sinus pacing was the smallest of the five pacing methods in the AF group. P wave duration during biatrial or high right septal pacing was significantly shorter than during right atrial appendage, low lateral right atrial, or distal coronary sinus pacing in each group. CONCLUSION: Atrial recovery time dispersion is suitable as an electrophysiologic parameter of atrial vulnerability. Distal coronary sinus pacing may prevent AF by increasing homogeneity of atrial repolarization, whereas biatrial and high right septal pacing contribute not only homogeneity of atrial repolarization but also improvement of atrial depolarization.     

Atrial Pacing Therapies for Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Implantable Defibrillators

Atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter and atrial tachycardia (AT) occur frequently in patients following implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Some new generation ICDs have incorporated atrial antitachycardia pacing therapy (ATP) and atrial pacing algorithms designed specifically for the prevention of AF. In the GEM III AT clinical evaluation, atrial ATP efficacy for termination of AF and AT was assessed. Overall ATP efficacy for AF/AT, based on device classification, was 40% when adjusted using the Generalized Estimating Equations to account for correlated data that arises from utilizing multiple episodes in some patients. However, many episodes of AF/AT were noted to terminate within 10 minutes of onset. Applying a more conservative definition of efficacy, termination within 20 sec of delivery of the last atrial ATP, efficacy for termination of AF/AT was 26%. 50 Hz burst pacing was shown to have minimal efficacy for termination of AF and modest incremental benefit following ramp or burst pacing therapies for AT. These observations provide a more realistic expectation of the value of atrial ATP in the ICD population with AF. Atrial ATP terminates some episodes of AT but previously reported efficacy rates of 40-50% are exaggerated and in part reflect spontaneous terminations of some AF/AT episodes.     

Prospective randomized study of mode switching in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in pacemaker patients with sinus node dysfunction (SND) and may result in rapid ventricular pacing (RVP) in the DDDR mode. Mode switching (MS) reduces RVP, but its clinical benefit in patients with SND is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred two patients in the Mode Selection Trial (MOST; 2,010-patient, 6-year trial of DDDR vs VVIR pacing in SND) randomized to DDDR pacemakers with atrial high-rate episode (AHRE) storage capabilities were subrandomized to MS ON (N = 96) or MS OFF (N = 106). Cardiovascular symptoms, quality of life (QOL), reprogramming due to RVP, death, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) were compared between groups. The treatment groups were similar with regard to AF history (59% MS ON vs 57% MS OFF). AHREs occurred in 49% patients during median follow-up of 2.2 years. Median AHRE duration (in min; MS ON 116 vs MS OFF 58, P = 0.29), frequency AHREs/week (MS ON 3.5 vs MS OFF 6.4, P = 0.23), and time spent in AHRE (min/week) (MS ON 450, MS OFF 268) were similar. Reprogramming due to any RVP during AHREs occurred more in MS OFF vs MS ON (13.2% vs 3.1%, P = 0.011) and marginally more for symptomatic RVP (8.5% vs 2.1%, P = 0.062). Cardiovascular symptoms occurred in 93.6% MS ON vs 90.2% MS OFF (P = 0.38). Median number of symptoms reported per visit was similar (MS ON 1.3 vs MS OFF 1.5, P = 0.62). Median symptom frequency/severity, summed and averaged over visits, was similar (MS ON 4.3 vs MS OFF 4.5, P = 0.74). QOL was not different between groups. Death, stroke, and HFH were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: MS reduces pacemaker reprogramming due to RVP during AHREs in a small number of patients but does not improve QOL or cardiovascular symptoms overall among patients with SND.     

Suppression of Atrial Tachyarrhythmias by Pacing

Pace‐Suppression of AF. Introduction: Treatment of atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) remains difficult in many patients. Accordingly, new therapeutic approaches for AT suppression are evaluated. Atrial pacing may prevent ATs by modifying the electrophysiologic conditions required for sustained ATs. Methods and Results: New pacing algorithms for prevention of AT are aimed at permanent overdrive suppression of arrhythmic activity, reduction of dispersion of atrial refractoriness produced by short‐long cycles, more aggressive overdrive pacing after spontaneous sinus conversion to prevent early reinitiation of ATs, and prevention of inadequate rate decay in patients with vagally induced ATs. AT prevention may be achieved by dedicated atrial pacing sites, e.g., pacing at the insertion of Bachmann's bundle or biatrial pacing, which compensates for interatrial conduction delay. Preexciting regions of critical conduction delay, pacing at the triangle of Koch or coronary sinus os, and dual‐site right atrial pacing have shown antiarrhythmic effects. Atrial preventive pacing and pharmacologic treatment may work synergistically in the concept of hybrid therapy. To prevent atrial electrical remodeling, early termination of AT seems desirable. This may be achieved by implanted devices that automatically detect ATs and provide atrial antitachycardia pacing for organized ATs. Initial studies showed that regular AT can automatically be terminated in approximately 50% of treated episodes. Conclusion: Pacing for prevention of AT and termination of organized AT episodes may become important steps within the concept of hybrid therapy of AT. However, their clinical efficacy and optimal patient selection remain to be evaluated in prospective, well‐designed clinical trials.     

Clinical experience with tiered atrial therapies and atrial arrhythmia prevention algorithms in a dual chamber cardioverter defibrillator

INTRODUCTION: The acceptance of atrial arrhythmia features in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) will depend on their ability to appropriately discriminate atrial tachyarrhythmias/atrial fibrillation (AT/AF). This study tested the effectiveness of an atrial/ventricular ICD with advanced atrial detection and new algorithms designed to prevent atrial arrhythmias. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were implanted with a dual chamber ICD (Model 1900, Guidant Corporation, MN, USA) at 25 US centers. Ten patients received a coronary sinus (CS) lead allowing a defibrillation vector for AT/AF cardioversion. Follow-up was 12.2 months. The addition of new atrial features designed for detection, discrimination, and prevention of AT/AF had no adverse effect upon detection of induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) (mean detection time with new features ON was 2.22 seconds vs 2.19 seconds with features OFF). A total of 100% of the induced and spontaneous ventricular and atrial arrhythmias receiving shock therapy were reviewed as appropriate detection. Atrial shock conversion efficacy for spontaneous and induced AT/AF episodes was 83% and 96%, respectively (144 spontaneous, 162 induced episodes). A 3-month randomized crossover trial of atrial preventative pacing features did not result in adverse effects, but there was no clinical efficacy for prevention of AT/AF. CONCLUSION: Enhanced atrial detection and discrimination features combined with tiered atrial therapies did not adversely impact the ability of the ICD (Model 1900) to appropriately detect and treat ventricular tachyarrhythmias.     

抗心动过速起搏器识别、预防和终止快速房性心律失常的有效性分析

目的研究评价抗心动过速DDDRP起搏器对识别、预防和终止快速房性心律失常(atrial tachyarrhythmia,ATA)的有效性.方法研究对象为因病态窦房结综合征合并ATA而置入DDDRP起搏器(Medtronic,AT500/AT501)的患者24例.起搏器的心房预防性起搏(atrial preventive pacing,APP)方案由主治医生决定是否或者何时开启,ATA的监测和抗心动过速起搏(anti-tachycardia pacing,ATP)功能则在置入术后随即激活.回放起搏器存储的心律失常事件和心内电图,核对、分析起搏器识别ATA的准确性和ATP终止ATA的效率,同时比较在APP功能开启前后患者ATA负荷的差异.结果 24例患者在(17.63±8.79)个月的随访期内均无事件生存,无起搏器相关并发症.12例患者起搏器的APP功能始终是关闭状态,6例患者在第一次术后随访时开启,另有6例的APP功能在随访至9.29个月时激活.24台起搏器共记录到97 367阵次的ATA,在有心内电图记录的阵次中,起搏器对ATA识别正确率为(76.77±20.52)%;ATP终止ATA的有效率为(50.27±19.29)%.尽管APP功能开启后的心房起搏比例(87.95±20.93)%较开启前(50.73±34.46)%明显增高(P《0.01),但是患者的ATA负荷(14.73% 与16.52% 或7.52 h/周与6.58 h/周)和最长单阵ATA持续时间(27.27 h 与20.75 h)差异均无统计学意义(P》0.05).结论 DDDRP起搏器能识别和诊断大多数(75%)的房性心律失常,适时发放的ATP治疗可超速抑制、终止约50%的房性心动过速或心房扑动;APP功能提高心房起搏的比例,但从整体上并不能明显减少ATA的发作和降低患者的ATA负荷.     

Atrial Arrhythmia Burden as an Endpoint in Clinical Trials: Is it the Best Surrogate? Lessons from a Multicenter Defibrillator Trial

Therapies to treat atrial tachyarrhythmias need to be evaluated in controlled, randomized clinical trials in order to optimize patient outcomes. If the maintenance of sinus rhythm is the ultimate goal, then atrial tachyarrhythmia burden may serve as a useful endpoint. Atrial tachyarrhythmia burden is defined as the total duration of all atrial tachyarrhythmias divided by the follow-up time and includes asymptomatic as well as symptomatic episodes. The measurement of atrial tachyarrhythmia burden is more practical now than in the past because of the availability of implantable devices capable of monitoring atrial tachyarrhythmia episodes. The advantage of burden over other endpoints is that it is not subject to investigator bias and it does not have the sampling error associated with episodic rhythm monitoring or the monitoring of patient symptoms. The use of burden as a surrogate endpoint for clinical outcome facilitates the demonstration of a biological effect of a therapy on the triggers or substrates responsible for the arrhythmia. Therapies that reduce burden can then be further studied to assess more traditional endpoints. A recent multicenter trial examined the effect of device-based atrial therapies on burden in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (Medtronic 7250 Jewel AF) to treat ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Patients were randomized to 3-month periods of atrial therapies "ON" or "OFF" and subsequently crossed over. The atrial therapies resulted in a reduction of atrial tachyarrhythmia burden from a mean of 58.5 hours/month to 7.8 hours/month (P = 0.007). Based on the evidence of a biological effect of the atrial therapies (burden reduction) studies to determine of the effects of AT/AF prevention and termination algorithms on morbidity and quality of life in ICD recipients are underway.     

Pacing to Prevent Atrial Fibrillation

Introduction: Pacing has been proposed as a nonpharmacologic treatment option to prevent atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) in drug-refractory patients. This article reviews the current state of pacing to prevent ATs.
Methods and Results: Different pacing modalities have been assessed with regard to their ability to prevent AT: conventional DDDR pacing with elevated lower rate limit, biatrial pacing, dual-site right atrial pacing, atrial septal pacing, and pacing with the use of dedicated pacing algorithms. Small studies suggest a benefit of conventional pacing for AT prevention in patients with bradycardia, but a randomized trial did not reveal any AT reduction by conventional pacing in patients without bradycardia. AT prevention by biatrial or dual-site right atrial pacing has been reported in small studies, but randomized trials did not show a clear benefit of these pacing techniques. Small studies showed a reduced AT recurrence rate in patients with septal pacing at the triangle of Koch or at Bachmann's bundle. Two large randomized trials with preventive pacing algorithms showed a significant AT reduction compared to conventional pacing, but this was not confirmed in four trials.
Conclusion: Pacing seems to be able to suppress ATs in a minority of patients; however, prospective identification of responders to different pacing modalities does not appear to be feasible at the present time. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 14, pp. S20-S26, September 2003, Suppl.)     

Inducibility of atrial fibrillation during atrioventricular pacing with varying intervals: role of atrial electrophysiology and the autonomic nervous system

INTRODUCTION: Patients receiving VVI pacemakers have a higher incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) than those receiving DDD pacemakers. However, the mechanism behind the difference is not clear. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether atrial electrophysiology and the autonomic nervous system play a role in the occurrence of AF during AV pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 28 patients who had (group I, n = 15) or did not have (group II, n = 13) AF induced by a single extrastimulus during pacing with different AV intervals. Atrial pressure, atrial size, atrial effective refractory periods, and atrial dispersion were evaluated during pacing with different AV intervals. Twenty-four-hour heart rate variability and baroreflex sensitivity also were examined. Atrial pressure, atrial size, effective refractory periods in the right posterolateral atrium and distal coronary sinus, and atrial dispersion increased as the AV interval shortened from 160 to 0 msec. During AV pacing, group I patients had greater minimal (52+/-17 vs 25+/-7 msec; P < 0.005) and maximal (76+/-16 vs 36+/-9 msec; P < 0.005) atrial dispersion than group II patients. The differences in atrial size and atrial dispersion among different AV intervals were greater in patients with AF than in those without AF. Baroreflex sensitivity (6.6+/-1.7 vs 3.9+/-1.0; P < 0.00005), but not heart rate variability, was higher in patients with AF than in those without AF. CONCLUSION: Abnormal atrial electrophysiology and higher vagal reflex activity can play important roles in the genesis of AF in patients receiving pacemakers.     

No evidence of automatic atrial overdrive pacing efficacy on reduction of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

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.     

The Atrial Pacing Peri-ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (PA3) Study: rationale and study design.

The Canadian Atrial Pacing Peri-Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Study tested the hypotheses that atrial pacing prevents paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) in patients without symptomatic bradycardia and that DDDR pacing is more likely to prevent PAF following total atrioventricular (AV) node ablation compared to VDD pacing. Patients with PAF who were refractory to or intolerant of antiarrhythmic drug therapy received a Medtronic Thera DR pacemaker 3 months prior to a planned total AV node ablation. Patients were randomized to atrial pacing or no pacing therapy. The time to first recurrence of sustained PAF was the primary study outcome event. Following AV node ablation, patients were randomized to the DDDR or VDD mode in a crossover study design. Patients were followed in each mode for 6 months. The time course of PAF recurrence was compared for each pacing mode.     

Septal atrial pacing for the prevention of atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) produces significant morbidity and mortality. The current method of permanent pacing of the right atrium (RA) may cause delayed interatrial conduction and predispose to AF. We hypothesized that atrial septal pacing would reduce AF compared with high RA pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: The patients were randomized into two groups. After randomization, patients received a dual-chamber rate-responsive device capable of mode-switching with advanced telemetry features. Devices were programmed in a standardized manner. To be eligible, the patients were required to have a conventional indication for a permanent pacemaker and recurrent paroxysmal AF. Group 1 was paced from high RA and Group 2 was paced from the atrial septum. Analysis of 43 patients who have completed 6 months of follow-up and 22 patients who completed 12 months of follow-up showed no significant differences in the number of mode-switching episodes or in AF burden between groups (P = NS by Mann-Whitney) although there was a trend for less AF with septal pacing. There were no differences in thresholds, sensing, or lead impedance. Lead parameters remained stable over time and there were no displacements of the electrodes after implantation. No patient experienced lead-related complications. A significant variability in AF burden was noted in this patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of an atrial-active fixation lead on the atrial septum is safe and feasible. However, this study showed no significant difference between septal pacing and high atrial pacing, using the endpoints of AF duration and number of AF episodes.     

The Results of Pacing Trials for the Prevention and Termination of Atrial Tachyarrhythmias: Is There Any Evidence of Therapeutic Breakthrough?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is now recognized as the most prevalent sustained cardiac arrhythmia and it is associated with considerable mortality and morbidity. The demand for effective therapeutic strategies for AF has always been high and is anticipated to further increase. Anticoagulation and pharmacologic antiarrhythmic therapy or radiofrequency catheter ablation remain the mainstay of treatment for AF. Among the wide range of nonpharmacologic options which are presently being investigated, only ablation in or around the pulmonary veins and the surgical maze procedure have been shown to accomplish the aim of the curative treatment of the arrhythmia.Preventative atrial pacing and antitachycardia pacing may offer an attractive alternative option for the management of AF by either eliminating the triggers and/or by modifying the substrate of the arrhythmia. The results of several recent trials have shown a significant increase in the time to first AF recurrence, a decrease in atrial conduction time, and a trend towards reduction in AF burden, suggesting that atrial pacing may prevent AF due to improved synchronization of atrial depolarization.The recognition of potential triggers of AF, such as atrial premature complexes, short-long sequence, and bradycardia, has encouraged the development of novel atrial pacing algorithms designed to prevent the initiation of the arrhythmia on an individual basis. Observations of AF often starting with regular atrial activity consistent with atrial tachycardia have supported the hypothesis that early antitachycardia pacing may prevent progression to AF.The concept of 'hybrid therapy' based on the combination of several different therapeutic strategies suggests that antitachycardia pacing therapy, integrated with an atrial defibrillator and preventative atrial pacing modes, may act synergistically to prevent AF. Dual chamber cardioverter-defibrillators with capacity to prevent and interrupt AF may offer more comprehensive and successful treatment for patients with advanced heart disease, frequent paroxysms of AF, and the risk of proarrhythmia.     

Pace-Termination and Pacing for Prevention of Atrial Tachyarrhythmias: Results from a Multicenter Study with an Implantable Device for Atrial Therapy

INTRODUCTION: Patients with bradycardia requiring permanent pacing frequently suffer from additional atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs). This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of atrial antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and the performance of pacing for AT prevention implemented into a new pacemaker. METHODS AND RESULTS: In patients with conventional indications for permanent pacing, an investigational DDDRP pacemaker (Medtronic AT500, model 7253) was implanted. The primary study objectives were to determine the safety of overall device functioning and its efficacy in terminating spontaneous AT. A secondary endpoint was to determine the reliability of AT detection. Pacemaker memory functions were used to analyze the impact of dedicated pacing algorithms on AT prevention. In 33 European and Canadian centers, 325 patients were enrolled (mean follow-up 2.3+/-1.3 months). Complication-free survival at 3 months was 88%. In 2,145 episodes stored with atrial electrograms, AT detection was confirmed in 97%. The algorithm for continuous overdrive pacing increased the percentage of atrial pacing to 97%. After ATP activation, 16,683 of 52,468 AT episodes were treated (120 patients). Of these, 8,903 episodes (53%) were terminated successfully by ATP. No proarrhythmic effect of preventive pacing or atrial ATP was observed. Preventive pacing algorithms increased the median percentage of atrial pacing from 62% to 97%. However, the number of AT/AF (atrial fibrillation) episodes (4.1 vs 4.1 per patient per day) and the time in AT/AF (13.7% vs 12.8%) was not significantly different before and after activation of preventive pacing. CONCLUSION: DDDRP pacing with a new system for AT therapy was safe and associated with successful pace-termination of AT in 53% of episodes. Preventive pacing and atrial ATP algorithms represent two new functions that can be implemented safely into pacemaker systems for nonpharmacologic treatment of ATs in patients requiring pacemaker therapy.     

Prevention of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients with sinus bradycardia: role of right atrial linear ablation and pacing site

INTRODUCTION: Right atrial linear lesions (RALL), either alone or in combination with antiarrhythmic drug therapy, may modify the substrate for maintenance of atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this prospective randomized study was to determine whether RALL provides additional benefit to right atrial appendage pacing (RAAP) and/or interatrial septum pacing (IASP) and drug therapy in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF and sinus bradycardia requiring permanent atrial pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (33 men and 31 women, mean age 73 +/- 10 years) completed the 6-month follow-up. Patients were randomized to either RALL (n = 33) or non-right atrial linear lesions (NRALL), and then to either IASP (n = 32) or RAAP (n = 32). Fifteen RALL patients were paced at the IAS and 18 at the RAA. Seventeen NRALL patients were paced at the IAS and 14 at the RAA. No statistical difference was observed with regard to the mean atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) burden between NRALL (84 +/- 169 min/day) and RALL patients (202 +/- 219 min/day). Mean AT burden was significantly lower in the IASP group (70 +/- 150 min/day) than in RAAP group (219 +/- 317 min/day; P < 0.016). In the RALL group, the mean AT burden was 99 +/- 180 min/day in the IASP patients and 288 +/- 372 min/day in the RAAP patients (P < 0.046). In the NRALL group, no statistical difference in the mean AT burden was observed between IASP patients (46 +/- 117 min/day) and RAAP patients (130 +/- 211 min/day). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study indicate that RALL did not provide any additional therapeutic benefit to combined antiarrhythmic drug therapy and septal or nonseptal atrial pacing in patients with sinus bradycardia and paroxysmal AF.     

Impact of anti-tachycardia pacing on atrial fibrillation burden when added on top of preventive pacing algorithms: results of the prevention or termination (POT) trial.

AIMS: The efficacy of preventive pacing algorithms (PPA) and anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) in reducing atrial fibrillation (AF) burden remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess whether ATP on top of PPA decreases AF burden. METHODS AND RESULTS: A series of 199 consecutive patients, with conventional indications for pacing, and documented AF, received a DDDR (rate adaptive dual chamber pacemaker) pacemaker with ATP capabilities (AT 500 Medtronic). After 3 months of conventional DDDR pacing at 70 b.p.m., AF burden was analysed. If patients had >30 min/week of AF, they were randomized to PPA or to PPA+ATP for 3 months (period 1). They were then crossed to the alternative therapy (period 2) and followed three additional months with a 1-month wash out period in-between. A group of 85 patients were randomized. Mean age 68 +/- 8 years, 61% men. Both groups showed a significant decrease in AF burden at the end of period 1 (64 and 81%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Atrial pacing with PPA decreases AF burden in patients with pacing indication. We did not observe a further decrease in AF burden or in the number of episodes when adding ATP on top of PPA.