Heart failure in patients with sick sinus syndrome treated with single lead atrial or dual-chamber pacing: no association with pacing mode or right ventricular pacing site.

AIMS: Previous studies indicate that ventricular pacing may precipitate heart failure (HF). We investigated occurrence of HF during long-term follow-up among patients with sick sinus syndrome (SSS) randomized to AAIR or DDDR pacing. Furthermore, we investigated effects of percentage of ventricular pacing (%VP) and pacing site in the ventricle. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data from 1415 patients randomized to AAIR (n = 707) or DDDR pacing (n = 708). Ventricular pacing leads were recorded as located in either an apical or a non-apical position. The %VP and HF hospitalizations were recorded during follow-up. Patients were classified with new HF, if in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV or if presence of ≥2 of: oedema; dyspnoea; NYHA functional class III. Mean follow-up was 5.4 ± 2.4 years. Heart failure hospitalizations did not differ between groups. In the AAIR group, 170 of the 707 (26%) patients developed HF vs. 169 of the 708 (26%) patients in the DDDR group, hazard rate ratio (HR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.22, P = 0.87. In DDDR patients, 146 of the 512 patients (29%) with ventricular leads in an apical position developed HF vs. 28 of the 161 patients (17%) with the leads in a non-apical position, HR 0.67, CI 0.45-1.00, P = 0.05. After adjustments this difference was non-significant. The incidence of HF was not associated with %VP (P = 0.57). CONCLUSION: In patients with SSS, HF was not associated with pacing mode, %VP, or ventricular lead localization. This suggests that DDDR pacing is safe in patients with SSS without precipitating HF.

Atrial fibrillation in patients with sick sinus syndrome: the association with PQ-interval and percentage of ventricular pacing.

AIMS: In the recently published DANPACE trial, incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) was significantly higher with single-lead atrial (AAIR) pacing than with dual-chamber (DDDR) pacing. The present analysis aimed to evaluate the importance of baseline PQ-interval and percentage of ventricular pacing (VP) on AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data on AF during follow-up in 1415 patients included in the DANPACE trial. In a subgroup of 650 patients with DDDR pacemaker, we studied whether %VP, baseline PQ-interval, and programmed atrio-ventricular interval (AVI) was associated with AF burden measured as time in mode-switch (MS) detected by the pacemaker. In the entire DANPACE study population, the incidence of AF was significantly higher in patients with baseline PQ-interval >180 ms (P< 0.001). Among 650 patients with DDDR pacemaker, telemetry data were available for 1.337 ± 786 days, %VP was 66 ± 33%, AF was detected at planned follow-up in 160 patients (24.6%), MS occurred in 422 patients (64.9%), and AF burden was marginally higher with baseline PQ-interval >180 ms (P= 0.028). No significant association was detected between %VP and %MS (Spearman's ρ 0.056, P= 0.154). %MS was not different between minimal-paced programmed AVI ≤ 100 and >100 ms (median value), respectively (P= 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicates that a longer baseline PQ-interval is associated with an increased risk of AF in patients with sick sinus syndrome. Atrial fibrillation burden is not associated with the percentage of VP or the length of the programmed AVI.

A comparison of single-lead atrial pacing with dual-chamber pacing in sick sinus syndrome.

AIMS: In patients with sick sinus syndrome, bradycardia can be treated with a single-lead pacemaker or a dual-chamber pacemaker. Previous trials have revealed that pacing modes preserving atrio-ventricular synchrony are superior to single-lead ventricular pacing, but it remains unclear if there is any difference between single-lead atrial pacing (AAIR) and dual-chamber pacing (DDDR). METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 1415 patients referred for first pacemaker implantation to AAIR (n = 707) or DDDR (n = 708) pacing and followed them for a mean of 5.4 ± 2.6 years. The primary outcome was death from any cause. Secondary outcomes included paroxysmal and chronic atrial fibrillation, stroke, heart failure, and need for pacemaker reoperation. In the AAIR group, 209 patients (29.6%) died during follow-up vs. 193 patients (27.3%) in the DDDR group, hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.29, P = 0.53. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was observed in 201 patients (28.4%) in the AAIR group vs. 163 patients (23.0%) in the DDDR group, HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03-1.56, P = 0.024. A total of 240 patients underwent one or more pacemaker reoperations during follow-up, 156 (22.1%) in the AAIR group vs. 84 (11.9%) in the DDDR group (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.53-2.59, P < 0.001). The incidence of chronic atrial fibrillation, stroke, and heart failure did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with sick sinus syndrome, there is no statistically significant difference in death from any cause between AAIR pacing and DDDR pacing. AAIR pacing is associated with a higher incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and a two-fold increased risk of pacemaker reoperation. These findings support the routine use of DDDR pacing in these patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00236158.

Individualized selection of pacing algorithms for the prevention of recurrent atrial fibrillation: Results from the VIP registry.

OBJECTIVES: The VIP registry investigated the efficacy of preventive pacing algorithm selection in reducing atrial fibrillation (AF) burden. BACKGROUND: There are few data identifying which patients might benefit most from which preventive pacing algorithms. METHODS: Patients, with at least one documented AF episode and a conventional antibradycardia indication for pacemaker therapy, were enrolled. They received pacemakers with AF diagnostics and four preventive algorithms (Selection and PreventAF series, Vitatron). A 3-month Diagnostic Phase with conventional pacing identified a Substrate Group (>70% of AF episodes with <2 premature atrial contractions [PACs] before AF onset) and a Trigger Group (< or =70% of AF episodes with <2 PACs before AF onset). This was followed by a 3-month Therapeutic Phase where in the Trigger Group algorithms were enabled aimed at avoiding or preventing a PAC and in the Substrate Group continuous atrial overdrive pacing was enabled. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-six patients were evaluated. In the Trigger Group (n = 73), there was a statistically significant 28% improvement in AF burden (median AF burden: 2.06 hours/day, Diagnostic Phase vs 1.49 hours/day, Therapy Phase; P = 0.03304 signed-rank test), and reduced PAC activity. There was no significant improvement in AF burden in the Substrate Group (median AF burden: 1.82 hours/day, Diagnostic Phase vs 2.38 hours/day, Therapy Phase; P = 0.12095 signed-rank test), and little change in PAC activity. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a subgroup of patients for whom the selection of appropriate pacing algorithms, based on individual diagnostic data, translated into a reduced AF burden. Trigger AF patients were more likely responders to preventive pacing algorithms as a result of PAC suppression.