Atrial Overdrive Pacing Algorithms Research Articles

Select Articles Published on the Topic of Arrhythmia and Electrophysiogy in 2013

Select Articles Published on the Topic of Arrhythmia and Electrophysiogy in 2013

Prospective Randomized Study to Assess the Efficacy of Site and Rate of Atrial Pacing on Long-Term Progression of Atrial Fibrillation in Sick Sinus Syndrome

Background— Atrial-based pacing is associated with lower risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) in sick sinus syndrome compared with ventricular pacing; nevertheless, the impact of site and rate of atrial pacing on progression of AF remains unclear. We evaluated whether long-term atrial pacing at the right atrial (RA) appendage versus the low RA septum with (ON) or without (OFF) a continuous atrial overdrive pacing algorithm can prevent the development of persistent AF. Methods and Results— We randomized 385 patients with paroxysmal AF and sick sinus syndrome in whom a pacemaker was indicated to pacing at RA appendage ON (n=98), RA appendage OFF (n=99), RA septum ON (n=92), or RA septum OFF (n=96). The primary outcome was the occurrence of persistent AF (AF documented at least 7 days apart or need for cardioversion). Demographic data were homogeneous across both pacing site (RA appendage/RA septum) and atrial overdrive pacing (ON/OFF). After a mean follow-up of 3.1 years, persistent AF occurred in 99 patients (25.8%; annual rate of persistent AF, 8.3%). Alternative site pacing at the RA septum versus conventional RA appendage (hazard ratio=1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.79–1.75; P =0.65) or continuous atrial overdrive pacing ON versus OFF (hazard ratio=1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.79–1.74; P =0.69) did not prevent the development of persistent AF. Conclusions— In patients with paroxysmal AF and sick sinus syndrome requiring pacemaker implantation, an alternative atrial pacing site at the RA septum or continuous atrial overdrive pacing did not prevent the development of persistent AF. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00419640.

Circulation : Clinical Summaries

<i>Circulation</i> : Clinical Summaries

SAFE Combinations Fail to Open the Door to Atrial Fibrillation Prevention

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the entire US population is ≈1%.1 The prevalence of AF increases substantially with age, with ≤9% of patients over the age of 80 years developing AF. The population presenting with permanent pacing requirements also increases with age, and the cumulative lifetime risk of developing paroxysmal AF in pacemaker patients may be as high as 40%.2 Article see p 687 Mechanisms for AF initiation and maintenance are multiple but are widely accepted to be a result of triggered initiation by atrial premature beats, and maintenance within the atrial substrate on the basis of multiple wavelets of reentry and rotors that depend on inhomogeneous atrial refractory periods and atrial conduction velocities. Atrial pacing may prevent both AF triggers and atrial substrate changes by suppressing atrial premature beats and inducing a more homogenous atrial landscape of refractory periods and conduction velocities. Atrial-based pacing is clearly superior to ventricular pacing alone in preventing atrial fibrillation with an 18% relative risk reduction with atrial-based pacing over a 3-year follow-up.3 This treatment effect has been postulated to be the result of atrial premature beat suppression and changes in atrial refractory periods and atrial conduction velocities as a result of atrial stretch attributed to higher atrial pressure from AV dyssynchronous pacing. The atrial changes associated with atrial-based pacing could possibly be enhanced by atrial overdrive pacing algorithms or by alternative site atrial pacing, such as the atrial septum. The role of alternative-site atrial pacing …

Overestimation of Atrial Tachyarrhythmia Detection in Pacemaker Patients with High Cumulative% of Atrial Pacing

Background: Although atrial high rate episodes (AHRE) have been commonly used to detect atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT/AF) in pacemaker patients, its reliability and characteristics are unclear. Methods and Results: 39 patients with implanted dual chamber pacemakers (mean age 79.7±6.6 years), who had no history of AT/AF and were programmed in the setting of AHRE at >190 beats/min in DDD mode, were studied. An atrial overdrive pacing (AOP) algorithm was randomly programmed “ON” in 19 and “OFF” in 20 patients. AHRE were detected in 20 patients (51%), consisting of AT/AF in 15 and repetitive non-reentrant ventriculoatrial synchrony (RNRVAS) in 8 patients, all included in the AOP “ON” group. A total of 257 of 1,528 episodes of AHRE were available for analysis, including 181 and 76 episodes in the AOP “ON” and “OFF” groups, respectively. Among 181 episodes in the AOP “ON” group, 72 (40%) were RNRVAS, whereas all episodes in the AOP “OFF” group (100%) were AT/AF. Detection of RNRVAS was closely associated with a high cumulative% atrial pacing. The specificity of AT/AF detection by AHRE was 40% when the AOP algorithm was activated, vs. 100% when not in use. Conclusions: AT/AF was common in pacemaker patients without a history of AT/AF. The increase in cumulative% atrial pacing and the use of an AOP algorithm might be closely associated with RNRVAS, non-AT/AF, detected by AHRE.

Reliability and Characteristics of Atrial Tachyarrhythmias Detection in Dual Chamber Pacemakers

Although atrial high rate episodes (AHRE) have been commonly used to detect atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT/AF) in pacemaker patients, its reliability and characteristics are unclear. 39 patients with implanted dual chamber pacemakers (mean age 79.7 ± 6.6 years), who had no history of AT/AF and were programmed in the setting of AHRE at > 190 beats/min in DDD mode, were studied. An atrial overdrive pacing (AOP) algorithm was randomly programmed "ON" in 19 and "OFF" in 20 patients. AHRE were detected in 20 patients (51%), consisting of AT/AF in 15 and repetitive non-reentrant ventriculoatrial synchrony (RNRVAS) in 8 patients, all included in the AOP "ON" group. A total of 257 of 1,528 episodes of AHRE were available for analysis, including 181 and 76 episodes in the AOP "ON" and "OFF" groups, respectively. Among 181 episodes in the AOP "ON" group, 72 (40%) were RNRVAS, whereas all episodes in the AOP "OFF" group (100%) were AT/AF. Detection of RNRVAS was closely associated with a high cumulative % atrial pacing. The specificity of AT/AF detection by AHRE was 40% when the AOP algorithm was activated, vs. 100% when not in use. AT/AF was common in pacemaker patients without a history of AT/AF. The increase in cumulative % atrial pacing and the use of an AOP algorithm might be closely associated with RNRVAS, non-AT/AF, detected by AHRE.

Pro-arrhythmia in atrial fibrillation suppression pacing algorithms

Atrial overdrive pacing algorithms have been partially effective in controlling atrial fibrillation (AF). A 76-year-old man with history of a cardiomyopathy and paroxysmal AF underwent implant of a dual-chamber ICD. After enabling preferential pacing (PP) algorithms, marked control of his AF was demonstrated, but with inappropriate ICD shocks secondary to a typical AV nodal re-entrant tachycardia. After successful slow pathway modification, no further episodes were documented with suppression of his AF burden with PP algorithms enabled.

Atrial overdrive pacing and incidence of heart failure-related adverse events in permanently paced patients

Atrial overdrive pacing algorithms may be effective in preventing or suppressing atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the maintenance of a heart rate incessantly faster than spontaneous could induce left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and promote heart failure (HF) on the long term. This post hoc analysis examined the effects of a new overdrive algorithm on the incidence of HF-related adverse events in 411 patients enrolled in the ADOPT-A trial. The AF Suppression algorithm was randomly programmed ON in 209 patients (treatment group) versus OFF in 202 patients (control group). The incidence of HF-related adverse events and HF-related deaths over a 6-month follow-up was compared between the two groups. Patients with versus without HF-related clinical events were also compared to each other within each group. There were eight HF-related adverse clinical events (3.8%) in the treatment group and 11 (5.4%) in the control group, including four HF-related deaths (1.9 vs. 2.0%) in each group during follow-up. Baseline NYHA functional class in patients with versus without HF-related adverse events was 1.4 +/- 0.5 versus 1.5 +/- 0.7 in the control, and 1.5 +/- 0.8 versus 1.5 +/- 0.6 in the treatment group. LV ejection fraction (EF) was 49 +/- 7% in patients with, versus 57 +/- 12% in patients without HF-related adverse events, in the control group, and 43 +/- 14% in patients with, versus 56 +/- 13% in patients without HF-related adverse events, in the treatment group. LVEF was lowest and similar in both groups among patients who died from HF (35 +/- 10% in the control and 38 +/- 27% in the treatment group). In ADOPT-A, HF-related clinical events and deaths were related to LV dysfunction and not to atrial pacing overdriven by the AF suppression algorithm.