Clinically oriented device programming in bradycardia patients: part 2 (atrioventricular blocks and neurally mediated syncope). Proposals from AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing).

: The purpose of this two-part consensus document is to provide specific suggestions (based on an extensive literature review) on appropriate pacemaker setting in relation to patients' clinical features. In part 2, criteria for pacemaker choice and programming in atrioventricular blocks and neurally mediate syncope are proposed. The atrioventricular blocks can be paroxysmal or persistent, isolated or associated with sinus node disease. Neurally mediated syncope can be related to carotid sinus syndrome or cardioinhibitory vasovagal syncope. In sinus rhythm, with persistent atrioventricular block, we considered appropriate the activation of mode-switch algorithms, and algorithms for auto-adaptive management of the ventricular pacing output. If the atrioventricular block is paroxysmal, in addition to algorithms mentioned above, algorithms to maximize intrinsic atrioventricular conduction should be activated. When sinus node disease is associated with atrioventricular block, the activation of rate-responsive function in patients with chronotropic incompetence is appropriate. In permanent atrial fibrillation with atrioventricular block, algorithms for auto-adaptive management of the ventricular pacing output should be activated. If the atrioventricular block is persistent, the activation of rate-responsive function is appropriate. In carotid sinus syndrome, adequate rate hysteresis should be programmed. In vasovagal syncope, specialized sensing and pacing algorithms designed for reflex syncope prevention should be activated.

Reduction in unnecessary ventricular pacing fails to affect hard clinical outcomes in patients with preserved left ventricular function: a meta-analysis.

Aims: Several pacing modalities across multiple manufacturers have been introduced to minimize unnecessary right ventricular pacing. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess whether ventricular pacing reduction modalities (VPRM) influence hard clinical outcomes in comparison to standard dual-chamber pacing (DDD). Methods and Results: An electronic search was performed using Cochrane Central Register, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included in this analysis. Outcomes of interest included: frequency of ventricular pacing (VP), incident persistent/permanent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), all-cause hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Odds ratios (OR) were reported for dichotomous variables. Seven RCTs involving 4119 adult patients were identified. Ventricular pacing reduction modalities were employed in 2069 patients: (MVP, Medtronic Inc.) in 1423 and (SafeR, Sorin CRM, Clamart) in 646 patients. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between VPRM and DDD groups. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 ± 0.9 years. Ventricular pacing reduction modalities showed uniform reduction in VP in comparison to DDD groups among all individual studies. The incidence of PerAF was similar between both groups {8 vs. 10%, OR 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57; 1.24], P = 0.38}. Ventricular pacing reduction modalities showed no significant differences in comparison to DDD for all-cause hospitalization or all-cause mortality [9 vs. 11%, OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.65; 1.03), P= 0.09; 6 vs. 6%, OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.74; 1.28), P = 0.84, respectively]. Conclusion: Novel VPRM measures effectively reduce VP in comparison to standard DDD. When actively programmed, VPRM did not improve clinical outcomes and were not superior to standard DDD programming in reducing incidence of PerAF, all-cause hospitalization, or all-cause mortality.