Atrial Rate-Responsive Pacing and Incidence of Sustained Atrial Arrhythmias in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: Atrial rate-responsive pacing (RRP) has proved to be safe in pacemaker recipients with chronotropic incompetence. Although RRP is available in all current implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), the outcomes of this pacing mode in ICD patients are unknown. The aim is to evaluate the relationship between atrial RRP and atrial arrhythmias in ICD recipients. METHODS: Dual-chamber and triple-chamber ICD patients were included in this multicenter cohort study. Patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) or VVI pacing mode were excluded. The number and duration of atrial tachycardia (AT)/AF episodes were assessed. RESULTS: Data from 415 patients and 80,707 AT/AF episodes (median duration: 0.4 hours) were collected after a 21.3 ± 14.1-month follow-up. Atrial RRP was programmed in 90 (21.7%) patients and was associated with a higher atrial pacing percentage in the overall study population (51.2 ± 33.8% vs 18.4 ± 25.7%, P < 0.001) and to a higher ventricular pacing percentage among dual-chamber devices (22.3 ± 37.6% vs 9.3 ± 25%, P < 0.001). Independent factors associated with sustained AT/AF episodes (>23 hours) were previous AF (odds ratio [OR]: 7.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.11-15.47; P < 0.001) and atrial RRP (OR: 3.58; 95% CI: 1.82-7.03; P < 0.001). RRP was related to a lower sustained AT/AF episodes-free survival both in patients with a history of AF (43% vs 70%, P = 0.035) and without a history of AF (82% vs 97%, P = 0.004) at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Atrial RRP in ICD patients was related to a higher incidence of sustained atrial arrhythmias. This pacing mode may have an atrial proarrhythmic effect on ICD patients, especially among those with a history of AF.

Preventing ventricular dysfunction in pacemaker patients without advanced heart failure: results from a multicentre international randomized trial (PREVENT-HF).

AIMS: Previous experimental and clinical studies have consistently suggested that right ventricular (RV) apical pacing has important adverse effects. Ventricular pacing (VP), however, is required, and cannot be reduced in many patients with atrioventricular (AV) block. The PREVENT-HF study was an international randomized trial that explored differences in left ventricular (LV) remodelling during RV apical vs. biventricular (BIV) pacing in patients with AV block. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with an expected VP prevalence ≥80% were assigned to RV apical or BIV pacing. The primary endpoint was the change in LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) >12 months. Secondary endpoints were LV end-systolic volume (ESV), LV ejection fraction (EF), mitral regurgitation (MR), and a combination of heart failure (HF) events and cardiovascular hospitalizations. Overall, 108 patients were randomized (RV: 58; BIV: 50). Intention to treat and on-treatment analyses revealed no significant differences in any of the outcomes. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) difference for treatment according to randomization (in mL): LVEDV -3.92 (-18.71 to 10.85), P= 0.6; LVESV -1.38 (-12.07 to 9.31), P= 0.80; LVEF 2.47 (-3.00 to 7.94), P= 0.37. Analysis of covariance difference for the on-treatment analysis: LVEDV -4.90 (-20.02 to 10.22, PP= 0.52; LVESV -6.45 (-17.28 to 4.38), P= 0.24, LVEF 2.18 (-3.37 to 7.73), P= 0.44. Furthermore, secondary endpoints did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: This study did not demonstrate significant LV volume differences >12 months between RV apical and BIV pacing for AV block. Thus, BIV pacing cannot be recommended as a routine treatment for AV block in these patients. However, the results encourage and inform the design of subsequent larger trials with higher power for detecting small volume changes. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00170326.