The usefulness of minimal ventricular pacing and preventive AF algorithms in the treatment of PAF: the ‘MinVPace’ study

Pacing to prevent atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pacemakers are frequently implanted in patients with atrial fibrillation. Many patients with pacemakers also develop atrial fibrillation. Over a period of time, through many studies on different pacing modes, sites, and algorithms, significant insights have been gained in the field of treatment and prevention of atrial fibrillation. The purpose of this review is to discuss some aspects of the scientific basis, current standards and possible future research related to cardiac pacing for prevention of atrial fibrillation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Trials involving pacing at the alternative pacing site per se or in combination with specific algorithms for prevention of atrial fibrillation have not shown consistent results. Recently, a new generation of antitachycardia pacing therapies has brought on a new optimism with promising outcome data of reduction in permanent atrial fibrillation, cardiovascular hospitalizations, and mortality.

SUMMARY

Multiple trials and clinical observational studies of different pacing methods and algorithms, with the exception of newer therapies in conjunction with atrial pacing algorithms, have not been shown to prevent atrial fibrillation. Hence, while permanent pacing is indicated for sinus node dysfunction and conduction abnormalities in patients with or without atrial fibrillation, the prevailing data in the literature does not support implantation of a permanent pacemaker for prevention of atrial fibrillation per se.

Very Low Ventricular Pacing Rates Can Be Achieved Safely in a Heterogeneous Pacemaker Population and Provide Clinical Benefits: The CANadian Multi-Centre Randomised Study-Spontaneous AtrioVEntricular Conduction pReservation (CAN-SAVE R) Trial

BACKGROUND

It is well recognized that right ventricular apical pacing can have deleterious effects on ventricular function. We performed a head-to-head comparison of the SafeR pacing algorithm versus DDD pacing with a long atrioventricular delay in a heterogeneous population of patients with dual-chamber pacemakers.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a multicenter prospective double-blinded randomized trial conducted at 10 centers in Canada, 373 patients, age 71±11 years, with indications for dual chamber DC pacemakers were randomized 1:1 to SafeR or DDD pacing with a long atrioventricular delay (250 ms). The primary objective was twofold: (1) reduction in the proportion of ventricular paced beats at 1 year; and (2) impact on atrial fibrillation burden at 3 years, defined as the ratio between cumulative duration of mode-switches divided by follow-up time. Statistical significance of both co-primary end points was required for the trial to be considered positive. At 1 year of follow-up, the median proportion of ventricular-paced beats was 4.0% with DDD versus 0% with SafeR (P<0.001). At 3 years of follow-up, the atrial fibrillation burden was not significantly reduced with SafeR versus DDD (median 0.00%, interquartile range [0.00% to 0.23%] versus median 0.01%, interquartile range [0.00% to 0.44%], respectively, P=0.178]), despite a persistent reduction in the median proportion of ventricular-paced beats (10% with DDD compared to 0% with SafeR).

CONCLUSIONS

A ventricular-paced rate <1% was safely achieved with SafeR in a population with a wide spectrum of indications for dual-chamber pacing. However, the lower percentage of ventricular pacing did not translate into a significant reduction in atrial fibrillation burden.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ Unique identifier: NCT01219621.

Lack of Correlations between Electrophysiological and Anatomical-Mechanical Atrial Remodeling in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) progressively leads to electrical remodeling (ER) and anatomical-mechanical remodeling (AR), whose relationships in humans remain poorly known.

METHODS

ER and AR were compared in patients undergoing percutaneous radiofrequency (RF) ablation for AF. ER was defined by right and left appendage activation rates as a surrogate for atrial refractory periods. AR was approached by left atrial (LA) diameters and area and left atrial appendage (LAA) area and contractile function (mean emptying flow velocity) (LAAFV) before RF ablation. Mean duration between successive LAA contractions was considered as LAA mechanical rate.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients (31 men, age: 64 ± 9 years) with paroxysmal (27%), persistent (61%), or long-persistent AF (12%) were prospectively included (ejection fraction: 44 ± 16%). Parameters exploring AR were highly correlated to each other: LA area (28 ± 7 cm(2) ), LAA area (5.7 ± 2.25 cm(2) ), LA transverse (49 ± 7 mm), and anteroposterior diameter (59 ± 13 mm) or LAAFV (29 ± 13 cm/s; P < 0.05 for each comparison). Parameters exploring ER were also highly correlated: right atrial appendage (RAA; 181 ± 39 ms) and LAA (176 ± 33 ms) activation rates (P < 0.0001). There was no significant correlation between any ER and AR parameter. Only LAA mechanical rate (174 ± 36 ms) was correlated to LAA or RAA activations rates (P ≤ 0.01).

CONCLUSION

ER and AR are not mutually related, atrial activation rate being not correlated to LA or LAA size or function. Thus, the mechanisms leading to AF-induced atrial remodeling may differ for anatomical and electrophysiological aspects.

Near elimination of ventricular pacing in SafeR mode compared to DDD modes: a randomized study of 422 patients

AIMS

SafeR performance versus DDD/automatic mode conversion (DDD/AMC) and DDD with a 250-ms atrioventricular (AV) delay (DDD/LD) modes was assessed toward ventricular pacing (Vp) reduction.

METHODS

After a 1-month run-in phase, recipients of dual-chamber pacemakers without persistent AV block and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) were randomly assigned to SafeR, DDD/AMC, or DDD/LD in a 1:1:1 design. The main endpoint was the percentage of Vp (%Vp) at 2 months and 1 year after randomization, ascertained from device memories. Secondary endpoints include %Vp at 1 year according to pacing indication and 1-year AF incidence based on automatic mode switch device stored episodes.

RESULTS

Among 422 randomized patients (73.2±10.6 years, 50% men, sinus node dysfunction 47.4%, paroxysmal AV block 30.3%, bradycardia-tachycardia syndrome 21.8%), 141 were assigned to SafeR versus 146 to DDD/AMC and 135 to DDD/LD modes. Mean %Vp at 2 months was 3.4±12.6% in SafeR versus 33.6±34.7% and 14.0±26.0% in DDD/AMC and DDD/LD modes, respectively (P<0.0001 for both). At 1 year, mean %Vp in SafeR was 4.5±15.3% versus 37.9±34.4% and 16.7±28.0% in DDD/AMC and DDD/LD modes, respectively (P<0.0001 for both). The proportion of patients in whom Vp was completely eliminated was significantly higher in SafeR (69%) versus DDD/AMC (15%) and DDD/LD (45%) modes (P<0.0001 for both), regardless of pacing indication. The absolute risk of developing permanent AF or of remaining in AF for >30% of the time was 5.4% lower in SafeR than in the DDD pacing group (ns).

CONCLUSIONS

In this selected patient population, SafeR markedly suppressed unnecessary Vp compared with DDD modes.