P5655Efficacy of new-generation atrial antitachycardia pacing for atrial tachyarrhythmias in patients with left ventricular dysfunction

Abstract

Abstract Background The progression to persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a worse clinical outcome in patients with previous atrial tachyarrhythmias. New-generation atrial antitachycardia pacing (ATP) (Reactive ATP) reduced the progression to persistent AF in patients with pacemaker and preserved left ventricular (LV) function. However, little is known about the efficacy of Reactive ATP in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) and LV dysfunction. Purpose We aimed to investigate the efficacy of Reactive ATP for atrial tachyarrhythmias in patients with LV dysfunction (LV ejection fraction [LVEF] <40%). Methods This study included 423 patients with CIED and previous atrial tachyarrthythmias. Reactive ATP was programmed in 284 patients (ATP group) and 139 were implanted with a dual-chamber device without ATP function (control group). The differences in the success rate of ATP and incidence of progression to persistent AF (≥7 days) between the ATP and control groups were evaluated in 108 patients with LVEF <40% (reduced LVEF) and 315 with LVEF ≥40% (preserved LVEF). Patients with persistent AF were excluded from this study. Results During 710±337 days of follow-up period, 16 patients (15%) with reduced LVEF and 51 (16%) with preserved LVEF progressed to persistent AF (p=0.88). The mean ATP success rate was lower in patients with reduced LVEF than in those with preserved LVEF, although not statistically significant (reduced LVEF: 27.2±19.4% and preserved LVEF: 35.1±29.2%, p=0.12). The incidence of progression to persistent AF was significantly lower in the ATP group than in the control group both in patients with reduced and preserved LVEF (log-rank, reduced LVEF: p=0.0070 and preserved LVEF: p<0.0001) (Figure). Multivariate analysis showed that use of Reactive ATP and smaller left atrium were associated with lower incidences of persistent AF, while LVEF was not predictive of progression to persistent AF (Reactive ATP: hazard ratio [HR] 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17–0.46, p<0.0001, left atrium diameter: HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00–1.07, p=0.030). Figure 1 Conclusions Reactive ATP was effective in preventing AF progression in patients with LV dysfunction.