Prävention von Vorhofflimmern durch Schrittmacherstimulation

Several prospective randomized clinical trials have reported that atrial-based "physiological" pacing is associated with a lower incidence of paroxysmal and permanent atrial fibrillation than single-chamber ventricular pacing in patients with conventional pacemaker indication. Whether atrial pacing itself is antiarrhythmic remains still uncertain. By contrast, right ventricular pacing is considered to beget atrial fibrillation, even in preserved AV synchrony during dual-chamber pacing. A number of clinical trials investigated the impact of sitespecific atrial pacing and advanced atrial pacing algorithms on the secondary prevention of atrial fibrillation. Multisite pacing (dual-site right atrial or biatrial pacing) was demonstrated to add only minimal benefit for the prevention of atrial fibrillation. By contrast, in some studies septal pacing and specific atrial pacing algorithms were reported to reduce the recurrence of atrial fibrillation in selected patients. At present, however, it remains unclear how to identify these patients. In clinical practice, the effectiveness of specific atrial pacing algorithms and/or septal pacing has to be tested out in the individual case. These therapeutic options should be considered in patients with a conventional indication for antibradycardia pacing and, additionally, symptomatic atrial fibrillation.     

Vorhofflimmern: Stimulation und Schrittmachertherapie

Pacing therapy is well established in all cases of symptomatic bradyarrhythmic atrial fibrillation. In paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation, the implanted dual chamber pacemaker device should incorporate an automatic mode switching algorithm. Mode switch in case of atrial fibrillation detection avoids pacemaker mediated rapid ventricular pacing during an atrial tachyarrhythmia and allows to perform dual chamber pacing during phases of sinus rhythm which is the preferable mode due to improved hemodynamics, rate adaptation, lower progress in atrial fibrillation burden and a lower rate of thromboembolic events as compared to ventricular pacing. PERSPECTIVE: The possibility to prevent from atrial fibrillation recurrencies by pacing is currently under investigation. Various methodological approaches, for example multisite or alternate single site pacing, preventive pacing algorithms or hybrid- and even triple-therapy concepts are used for that purpose. Due to the theoretical point of view, that all these pacing interventions may reduce atrial fibrillation but also have the potential to act in a proarrhythmic manner, the data from adequately designed trials is of major importance: Septal pacing and preventive pacing algorithms seem to have a beneficial effect in a limited number of so far available studies. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, preventive pacing and/or placement of the atrial lead in a septal position should therefore be available in those patients with a conventional pacing indication in addition to symptomatic recurrent atrial fibrillation. Preventive pacing is so far with a significant and not-predictable amount of non-responders no "early" stage of therapy in patients with recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation and no additional conventional pacing indication.     

Atrial fibrillation: profit from cardiac pacing?

The impact of cardiac pacing on the prevention of atrial fibrillation is under scientific investigation. Several prospective randomised clinical trials have reported that atrial-based physiologic AAI(R)- or DDD(R)-pacing is associated with a lower incidence of paroxysmal and permanent atrial fibrillation than single-chamber ventricular pacing in patients with a conventional pacemaker indication. However, it is still uncertain whether atrial pacing itself has independent antiarrhythmic properties. In contrast, right ventricular pacing is considered to promote atrial fibrillation, even in preserved AV synchrony during dual-chamber pacing. The electrical secondary prevention of atrial fibrillation is mainly based on variations of the atrial pacing site and sophisticated preventive pacing algorithms incorporated in the pacemaker software. Dual-site right atrial and biatrial pacing were reported to exhibit modest to no benefit for the prevention of atrial fibrillation, whereas septal pacing and specific preventive pacing algorithms have been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of atrial fibrillation in a number of clinical trials. However, the role of septal pacing and preventive pacing algorithms still has to be clarified since, overall, study results have been inconsistent so far. One of the main goals of future investigations should be the identification of responder groups of preventive pacing concepts. In clinical practice, the efficacy of pacing algorithms and septal pacing has to be determined in the individual case. These options should be taken into account in patients with symptomatic bradycardia as the indication for cardiac pacing and, in addition, symptomatic atrial fibrillation.     

Schrittmachertherapie bei Patienten mit Vorhofflimmern

Pacemaker therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation means the best current pacemaker therapy for patients with bradycardias with the aim to avoid the onset of atrial fibrillation and to establish DDD pacing despite of a history of atrial tachyarrhythmias. The newer application of pacing is the suppression of atrial arrhythmias in patients with medical refractory atrial tachyarrhythmias. Patients with slow ventricular rates and permanent atrial fibrillation should receive a VVI-pacemaker, if the bradycardias causes syncope, dizziness or a decrease of their exercise tolerance. In case of chronotropic incompetence the pacemaker should provide rate responsive pacing. Patients with sick sinus syndrome should receive an atrial (AAI) or dual-chamber (DDD) pacemaker, because patients with these in contrast to VVI-pacemakers develop less often atrial fibrillation and subsequent complications such as atrial thromboembolism. A dual-chamber or VDD-pacemaker—the latter connected to a VDD-single-lead—is indicated in patients with advanced AV-block. Atrial fibrillation occurs in 3 to 6% of the patients with no history of arrythmia and is, if pacemakers have no automatic mode switch, an often reason to program the devices to the VVI-pacing mode. Nowadays, most DDD(R)-pacemakers provide an automatic mode switch: During an atrial tachycardia the pacemaker switches to a VVI/VVIR mode and restores the initial DDD(R)-pacing mode with termination of the arrhythmia. In respect to the newer applications, one approach to prevent atrial tachyarrhythmias is permanent atrial pacing. As lower pacing rates of 80 to 90 ppm are usually needed and many patients hardly tolerate these pacing rates, new algorithms are under clinical investigation. Another approach is the simultaneous depolarization of the right and left atrium. Biatrial pacing is performed with one lead in the high right atrium and another lead in the coronary sinus. Another solution is bifocal atrial pacing with leads placed in the high right atrium and in the coronary sinus ostium. One effect of the new pacing techniques is to shorten interatrial conduction times. Therefore, biatrial pacing has become a therapy to prevent atrial arrhythmias deriving from delayed interatrial conduction times. As atrial reentry circuits seem to be important in atrial fibrillation, multisite atrial pacing is also performed in patients with medical refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Preliminary results suggest a more effective prevention of atrial fibrillation; nevertheless, these techniques should be still restricted to patients enrolled in clinical studies.     

Atrial fibrillation: profit from cardiac pacing?

Summary The impact of cardiac pacing on the prevention of atrial fibrillation is under scientific investigation. Several prospective randomised clinical trials have reported that atrial-based physiologic AAI(R)- or DDD(R)-pacing is associated with a lower incidence of paroxysmal and permanent atrial fibrillation than single-chamber ventricular pacing in patients with a conventional pacemaker indication. However, it is still uncertain whether atrial pacing itself has independent antiarrhythmic properties. In contrast, right ventricular pacing is considered to promote atrial fibrillation, even in preserved AV synchrony during dual-chamber pacing. The electrical secondary prevention of atrial fibrillation is mainly based on variations of the atrial pacing site and sophisticated preventive pacing algorithms incorporated in the pacemaker software. Dual-site right atrial and biatrial pacing were reported to exhibit modest to no benefit for the prevention of atrial fibrillation, whereas septal pacing and specific preventive pacing algorithms have been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of atrial fibrillation in a number of clinical trials. However, the role of septal pacing and preventive pacing algorithms still has to be clarified since, overall, study results have been inconsistent so far. One of the main goals of future investigations should be the identification of responder groups of preventive pacing concepts. In clinical practice, the efficacy of pacing algorithms and septal pacing has to be determined in the individual case. These options should be taken into account in patients with symptomatic bradycardia as the indication for cardiac pacing and, in addition, symptomatic atrial fibrillation.

---

     

Deleterious effects of long-term single-chamber ventricular pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome: the hidden benefits of dual-chamber pacing.

Nine hundred fifty patients who received three modes of primary pacemaker systems (581 dual-chamber universal [DDD], 84 atrioventricular-sequential ventricular-inhibited [DVI] and 285 ventricular-inhibited [VVI]) over 12 years were studied retrospectively to determine the effect of pacing mode on patient longevity and the subsequent development of chronic atrial fibrillation or flutter. All patients were followed up continuously for 7 to 8 years. Patients were classified according to indication for permanent pacing (sick sinus syndrome or other indication), age at pacemaker implantation (less than or equal to 70 or greater than 70 years) and history of atrial tachyarrhythmia. Fourteen percent of patients developed atrial fibrillation at some time during the study period. Of those, 4% had a DDD pacemaker, 8% had a DVI pacemaker and 19% had a VVI pacemaker. At 7 years, atrial fibrillation was significantly more frequent in the VVI group than in the DDD and DVI groups. In patients with sick sinus syndrome, the incidence rate was even higher in the VVI group but approximately the same in the DDD and DVI groups. Patients in the VVI and DVI groups who had had previous atrial tachyarrhythmia had a significantly higher incidence of atrial fibrillation at 7 years than did those in the DDD group. During the entire period there were 130 deaths in the study group, including 22% of patients with a DDD pacemaker, 38% of those with a DVI pacemaker and 50% of those with a VVI pacemaker. Patient survival at 7 years was lower in the VVI group than in the DDD or DVI groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Role of permanent pacing to prevent atrial fibrillation: science advisory from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology (Subcommittee on Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias) and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group, in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society

This advisory summarizes the current database on pacing modalities and algorithms used to prevent and terminate atrial fibrillation (AF). On the basis of the evidence indicating that ventricular pacing is associated with a higher incidence of AF in patients with sinus node dysfunction, a patient who has a history of AF and needs a pacemaker for bradycardia should receive a physiological pacemaker (dual chamber or atrial) rather than a single-chamber ventricular pacemaker. For patients who need a dual-chamber pacemaker, efforts should be made to program the device to minimize the amount of ventricular pacing when atrioventricular conduction is intact. Many pacemakers and implantable defibrillators have features designed to prevent AF and to terminate AF with rapid atrial pacing. The evidence to support their use is limited, although these algorithms appear to be safe and usually add little additional cost. For patients who have a bradycardia indication for pacing and also have AF, no consistent data from large randomized trials support the use of alternative single-site atrial pacing, multisite right atrial pacing, biatrial pacing, overdrive pacing, or antitachycardia atrial pacing. Even fewer data support the use of atrial pacing in the management of AF in patients without symptomatic bradycardia. At present, permanent pacing to prevent AF is not indicated; however, additional studies are ongoing, which will help to clarify the role of permanent pacing for AF.     

Pacing delivered rate and rhythm control for atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Device therapy for atrial fibrillation remains contentious despite the recognized benefit of atrial pacing in sinus node dysfunction. There are various new specialized pacing algorithms that aim to provide rhythm or rate control in atrial fibrillation. We review the various options for device therapy and the evidence available concerning their effectiveness. RECENT FINDINGS: Randomized trials on preventative algorithms for atrial fibrillation have not shown consistent benefit. Anti-tachycardia pacing for atrial fibrillation has inherent problems illustrated in this review and has failed to demonstrate objective improvement except in the case of atrial flutter. Several large randomized trials have demonstrated an adverse outcome with right ventricular apical pacing. These studies have shown an increase in atrial fibrillation with ventricular pacing. Recent studies have emphasised the importance of right ventricular apical pacing in burden of atrial fibrillation and therefore we discuss the likely confounding effect on previous trials and speculate on future directions. SUMMARY: The use of a device with atrial fibrillation prevention algorithms in a patient with a bradycardia indication for pacing is not unreasonable but there is no hard evidence of benefit. Patients with sinus node dysfunction should be paced in the atrium alone. There is no indication for use of a device for atrial fibrillation without a conventional indication for pacing.     

New indications for pacing

This article reviews developments in four areas: single-versus dual-chamber pacing, pacing for prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF), pacing for the treatment of neuromediated syncope, and pacing in patients with congestive heart failure. Large, randomized clinical trials comparing physiologic and ventricular pacing in different pacemaker populations have demonstrated that physiologic pacing does prevent AF but does not reduce cardiac mortality or stroke. The benefit for prevention of AF appears to be in patients with sinus node disease as the primary indication for pacing. Selective atrial pacing algorithms designed for the prevention of AF have not been shown to substantially reduce the overall burden of AF. Cardiac pacing has been shown to have a moderate benefit in the treatment of neuromediated syncope. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is emerging as a promising new treatment for heart failure. Long-term studies report that it improves quality of life and functional capacity, and reduces hospitalizations for heart failure. The impact of this therapy on mortality awaits the results of ongoing studies.     

VVI起搏术后心房颤动与心钠素和室房逆传的关系

长期心脏起搏的患者,有部分并发心房颤动,尤其是VVI起搏者。本文主要阐述VVI起搏术后心房颤动与血心钠素和室房逆传的关系,为选择适当的起搏器和起搏方式以及临床干预措施提供理论依据,从而减少起搏术后心房颤动的发生。     

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 Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial: Rationale, Design, Results, Clinical Implications and Lessons for Future Trials

The Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) trial randomized 506 patients and tested the hypothesis that the dual-chamber pacing mode would produce improved hemodynamics and would in turn reduce congestive heart failure, heart failure hospitalizations, heart failure deaths, atrial fibrillation, strokes, ventricular arrhythmias, and total mortality compared to backup ventricular pacing in patients indicated for implantable defibrillator therapy. Patients had either primary prevention indications (47%) or secondary prevention indications (53%) for implantable defibrillator therapy but had no indications for bradycardia pacemaker support. All the patients had moderate to severe left ventricular dysfunction with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less (mean = 27%) and were consistently treated with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (86%) and beta adrenergic blocking agents (85%). The primary combined endpoint of hospitalization for congestive heart failure or death was paradoxically increased and statistically significant (p = 0.03) at one year in the patients paced in the dual chamber mode (22.6%) compared to patients randomized to ventricular backup pacing (13.3%). Both heart failure hospitalization and mortality contributed outcome. Another perspective would consider this a randomized controlled study of presence or absence of pacemaker therapy in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and indications for implantable defibrillator therapy. Ventricular backup pacing produced less than 3% ventricular and no atrial pacing, while dual chamber pacing produced approximately 60% atrial and ventricular paced heart beats. The poor outcome in the dual chamber paced group correlated with the percentage of right ventricular pacing and suggests that right ventricular pacing caused ventricular dyssynchrony. The poor outcome associated with right ventricular pacing compared to intrinsic activation in the control group of the DAVID trial is reminiscent of the poor outcome associated with prolonged intraventricular conduction activation in the control groups compared to biventricular pacing in the intervention groups of the cardiac resynchronization trials. The direct conclusion from these results are that patients with indications for implantable defibrillators and no indication for pacing should not be paced in the dual chamber pacing mode. It is not appropriate to conclude that only single chamber implantable defibrillators should be implanted. There are other potential advantages to having an implanted atrial lead including improved secondary outcomes. However the DAVID trial results suggest that the dual chamber paced mode was not associated with improved quality of life or decreased frequency of hospitalization, inappropriate shocks from the defibrillator or atrial fibrillation. The more important question is what is the optimal pacing mode in these patients? The AAIR mode is under investigation in the DAVID II study in an attempt to identify a pacing mode that preserves atrio-ventricular synchrony, normal atrio-ventricular timing, prevents bradycardia and also prevents right ventricular stimulation. Caution should be taken to not directly apply these results to patients with either an indication for pacemaker therapy or to patients with an indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy since patients from neither population were included. However, considering the large magnitude of the deleterious effects associated with dual chamber pacing in the DAVID trial future studies should explore the possibility that left ventricular stimulation may be the only pacing mode capable of preventing bradycardia without increasing death and congestive heart failure.     

Adverse effects of direct current cardioversion on cardiac pacemakers and electrodes Is external cardioversion contraindicated in patients with permanent pacing systems?

Use of pacing in sick sinus syndrome and recent developments in pacemaker therapy for intermittent atrial fibrillation raise the question of whether external electrical cardioversion should be used for termination of atrial fibrillation. This paper analyzes three cases of pacemaker and/or electrode dysfunction appearing after direct current (DC) cardioversion for termination of atrial fibrillation. Despite similar conditions during cardioversion in all cases, different dysfunctions reflecting damage to the pulse generator and/or a rise of the stimulation threshold in both, atrial and ventricular leads, have been observed. The possible mechanisms for these effects are discussed and recommendations for the management of cardioversion in patients with permanent pacemaker systems are given.     

Atrial septal pacing in the prevention of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation refractory to antiarrhythmic drugs

BACKGROUND: Early reports have shown that pacing the atria at a site or sites other than the right atrial appendage may prevent atrial fibrillation. Our centre has shown that pacing the atrial septum reduces the duration of atrial activation which is an important determinant of predisposition to paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Ablation of the atrioventricular (AV) node together with implantation of a pacemaker can control symptoms due to paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients in whom antiarrhythmic drugs have failed. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of atrial septal pacing on patients who were candidates for AV node ablation. METHODS: Atrial septal pacemakers were implanted in 28 patients with symptomatic, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that had been unresponsive to two or more antiarrhythmic drugs. Pacing was not indicated for any reason other than the anticipated need to proceed to AV node ablation. Change in symptoms was assessed by quality of life questionnaires and recurrence of atrial fibrillation was measured objectively by pacemaker interrogation and ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring. RESULTS: Atrial septal pacing in combination with an antiarrhythmic agent resulted in a substantial subjective improvement in 19 patients (68%). Objective data confirmed similar findings; atrial fibrillation was completely or markedly reduced in 17 patients (60%). Six patients experienced a modest improvement in symptoms; in only four patients was it necessary to proceed to AV node ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Atrial septal pacing together with continuance of previously ineffective antiarrhythmic therapy may prevent or markedly reduce the frequency of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and obviate the need to ablate the AV node.     

双房同步起搏联合预防心房颤动的起搏治疗模式治疗快速房性心律失常的临床应用(附三例报告)

为观察三腔双房起搏联合预防心房颤动 (简称房颤 )的起搏治疗模式治疗快速性房性心律失常的临床效果。研究 3例房间传导阻滞合并快速性房性心律失常 ,并置入三腔双房同步起搏器的患者。起搏器具有房颤预防治疗功能。左房起搏通过冠状静脉窦置入 2 188电极导线 ,左右心房电极导线通过Y形转接器与双腔起搏器连接。DDTA起搏模式 ,随访 6个月 ,观察超驱动起搏、长间期抑制、房性早搏 (简称房早 )后加速起搏功能关闭和开启时 ,患者的临床症状、统计模式转换发生的次数、第一次至第二次房颤发作的间期、平均 2 4h房早记数。结果 :双房同步起搏后 ,患者快速房性心律失常的发作明显减少。超驱动起搏、长间期抑制、房早后加速起搏功能开启时 ,模式转换发生的次数减少、第一次至第二次房颤发作的间期延长、平均 2 4h房早记数明显减少。结论 :初步临床应用提示 :三腔双心房起搏联合预防房颤的起搏治疗模式治疗快速性房性心律失常可行且有效。     

Influence of pacing modalities on the incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients without prior atrial fibrillation. A prospective study

Aim Many studies suggest that patients who receive a physiologicalpacemaker have a reduced incidence of atrial fibrillation comparedto patients receiving a ventricular pacemaker. Methods In order to evaluate the impact of different pacing modalitieson the incidence of atrial fibrillation, we prospectively analysed210 patients. Patients with previous episodes of atrial fibrillationwere excluded from the study. The patient population included110 patients paced for sick sinus syndrome and 100 patientspaced for total atrio-ventricular block or second degree typeatrioventricular block. Results Patients were followed for 5 years; the incidence of atrialfibrillation was 10% at 1 year, 23% at 3 years and 31% at 5years. There was an increase in the incidence of atrial fibrillationin patients receiving a ventricular pacemaker compared to patientsreceiving a physiological pacemaker. Conclusion The pacing modality appeared to influence the incidence of atrialfibrillation in paced patients; patients with ventricular pacinghad a significantly higher incidence of arrhythmias than didpatients with physiological pacing.     

Device-based therapies for atrial fibrillation

Optional statement Ablation of the atrioventricular conduction system and pacemaker implantation is the preferred procedure for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in whom a rate control strategy has been selected but in whom rate-controlling medications are intolerable or ineffective. Selection of standard right ventricular (RV) pacing versus biventricular pacing is individualized, based on the degree and etiology of left ventricular dysfunction. Atrial-based pacing is clearly preferable to ventricular-based pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome, because it leads to a reduction in the development of AF. Emerging evidence indicates that excess RV pacing is deleterious, increasing AF, heart failure, and possibly mortality. Therefore, physiologic pacing with minimization of RV pacing is desirable. Atrial pacing algorithms that increase the frequency of atrial pacing have shown modest efficacy in the prevention of AF. Use of atrial pacing algorithms is reasonable for patients with a history of AF and standard bradycardia indications for permanent pacing in whom maintenance of sinus rhythm is desirable. Studies assessing novel and multiple site atrial pacing therapies have mixed results, without compelling evidence of clinically important benefit. The exceptions are biatrial and right atrial overdrive pacing immediately after cardiac surgery. Several studies have shown effective suppression of postoperative AF with their use. Device therapy (eg, atrial antitachycardia pacing and defibrillation) for the termination of AF is effective in reducing arrhythmia burden. However, improvement in clinically relevant end points is not established and indications are not clearly defined. If a patient lacks an indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, we do not offer atrial defibrillation as a treatment option. Atrial arrhythmias may be better prevented by programming to avoid ventricular pacing than by specific atrial interventions.     

Predictors of atrial rhythm after atrioventricular node ablation for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial arrhythmias

OBJECTIVE: To assess the natural history of the atrial rhythm of patients with paroxysmal atrial arrhythmias undergoing atrioventricular node ablation and permanent pacemaker implantation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients identified from the pacemaker database and electrophysiology records of a tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: 62 consecutive patients with paroxysmal atrial arrhythmias undergoing atrioventricular node ablation and permanent pacemaker implantation between 1988 and July 1996. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Atrial rhythm on final follow up ECG, classified as either ordered (sinus rhythm or atrial pacing) or disordered (atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia). (2) Chronic atrial fibrillation, defined as a disordered rhythm on two consecutive ECGs (or throughout a 24 hour Holter recording) with no ordered rhythm subsequently documented. RESULTS: Survival analysis showed that 75% of patients progressed to chronic atrial fibrillation by 2584 days (86 months). On multiple logistic regression analysis a history of electrical cardioversion, increasing patient age, and VVI pacing were associated with the development of chronic atrial fibrillation. A history of electrical cardioversion and increasing patient age were associated with a disordered atrial rhythm on the final follow up ECG. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with paroxysmal atrial arrhythmias are at high risk of developing chronic atrial fibrillation. A history of direct current cardioversion.     

The Managed Ventricular pacing versus VVI 40 Pacing (MVP) Trial: clinical background, rationale, design, and implementation

Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality among appropriately selected patients who have had or are at risk for life‐threatening ventricular arrhythmia. Right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing has been implicated in worsening heart failure and death. The optimal pacemaker mode for bradycardia support while minimizing unnecessary and potentially harmful RVA pacing has not been determined. Methods: The Managed Ventricular pacing vs. VVI 40 Pacing Trial (MVP) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, single‐blind, parallel, controlled clinical trial designed to establish whether atrial‐based dual‐chamber managed ventricular pacing mode (MVP?) is equivalent or superior to back‐up only ventricular pacing (VVI 40) among patients with standard indications for ICD therapy and no indication for bradycardia pacing. The MVP Trial is designed with 80% power to detect a 10% reduction in the primary endpoint of new or worsening heart failure or all‐cause mortality in the MVP?‐treated group. Approximately 1,000 patients at 80 centers in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and Israel will be randomized to MVP? or VVI 40 pacing after successful implantation of a dual‐chamber ICD. Heart failure therapies will be optimized in accordance with evidence‐based guidelines. Prespecified secondary endpoints will include ventricular arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, new indication for bradycardia pacing, health‐related quality of life, and cost effectiveness. Enrollment began in October 2004 and concluded in April 2006. The study will be terminated upon recommendation of the Data Monitoring Committee or when the last patient enrolled and surviving has reached a minimum 2 years of follow‐up. Conclusion: The MVP Trial will meet the clinical need for carefully designed prospective studies to define the benefits of atrial‐based dual‐chamber minimal ventricular pacing versus single‐chamber ventricular pacing in conventional ICD patients.     

Design and Implementation of the Dual Site Atrial Pacing to Prevent Atrial Fibrillation (DAPPAF) Clinical Trial

The Dual Site Atrial Pacing to Prevent Atrial Fibrillation (DAPPAF) study compares dual site, single site and support pacing modalities in the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with a history of paroxysmal AF (PAF) and a bradyarrhythmic indication for pacing. The trial is a randomized crossover comparison of dual site atrial pacing, single site atrial pacing, and a support pacing control period (DDI at 50 ppm or VDI) done in six month intervals. Patient inclusion requires at least 2 documented AF episodes in the three months prior to enrollment. The patients can be on concurrent antiarrhythmic drug regimens but this regimen must remain constant throughout the protocol. Patients with AV nodal ablation are excluded from this study. The primary endpoints of the study compare the time to first recurrence of clinically significant symptomatic AF with ECG verification, and quality of life among the three treatment modes. Secondary endpoints include time to first recurrence of all AF episodes as monitored by the pacemaker, the measurement of echocardiographic parameters, and symptoms logged by the patients. This trial was designed after pilot studies showed dual site pacing to be safe, feasible and preliminary results suggested increased maintenance of sinus rhythm with atrial pacing.