Effects of different pacing algorithms on cumulative ventricular pacing proportion in patients with pacemakers / 中华医学杂志(英文版)
Chinese Medical Journal
; (24): 2937-2942, 2011.
Article
in En
| WPRIM
| ID: wpr-292775
Responsible library:
WPRO
ABSTRACT
<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>It is well known that increased cumulative ventricular pacing proportion (CumVP%) is one of the most important causes for adverse cardiovascular events. Therefore, how to reduce CumVP% has been a treatment issue in recent years. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different pacing algorithms on CumVP% in patients with pacemakers.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Pacemakers with three pacing algorithms, i.e., conventional dual chamber rate adaptive pacing (DDDR), search atrioventricular conduction plus (SAV+) and managed ventricular pacing (MVP), were implanted in 42 patients including 41 with bradycardia arrhythmias and one with ventricular tachycardia. Pacemakers were programmed to work in conventional DDDR, SAV+ and MVP during the follow-up periods of the first, the second and the third month. In each pacing algorithm, the time percentages of four pacing and sense status including atrial sense-ventricular sense (AS-VS), atrial sense-ventricular pacing (AS-VP), atrial pacing-ventricular sense (AP-VS) and atrial pacing-ventricular pacing (AP-VP) were calculated. Cumulative ventricular pacing proportions were compared in the three pacing algorithms in the first, the second and the third month postoperatively.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>In the DDDR algorithm AS-VS, AS-VP, AP-VS and AP-VP were 2.4%, 52.3%, 2.5% and 42.8% respectively, while in SAV+ they were 19.3%, 34.9%, 33.9% and 12.0%, in MVP they were 38.9%, 13.2%, 41.6% and 6.4%. In the above the DDDR, SAV+ and MVP algorithms, cumulative ventricular pacing proportions were 95.1%, 46.9% and 19.6%, respectively (P < 0.05) and the percentages of CumVP% < 40% in patients were 0, 23.8% and 95.2.0% (P < 0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Compared with the conventional DDDR algorithm, both SAV+ and MVP significantly reduced the CumVP%, especially the MVP algorithm. Patients may benefit from MVP algorithm due to reduced CumVP%.</p>
Full text:
1
Index:
WPRIM
Main subject:
Pacemaker, Artificial
/
Algorithms
/
Cardiac Pacing, Artificial
/
Electrophysiology
/
Heart Ventricles
/
Methods
Limits:
Aged
/
Female
/
Humans
/
Male
Language:
En
Journal:
Chinese Medical Journal
Year:
2011
Type:
Article