The impact of stored atrial rhythm diagnostics in permanent pacemakers and the management of atrial fibrillation: the Vitatron Selection AFm Registry study

Newer algorithms in bradycardia management

Permanent cardiac pacemakers (PPM) are effective in the treatment of bradycardia in a growing number of clinical scenarios. An appreciation of the capacity of PPMs to result in negative hemodynamic and proarrhythmic effects has grown alongside clinical experience with permanent pacing. Such experience has necessitated the development of algorithms aimed at optimizing device functionality across a broad spectrum of physiologic and pathologic conditions. This review highlights recent device-based algorithms used in automated threshold testing, reduction of right ventricular pacing, prevention and treatment of pacemaker-mediated tachycardia, mode switching for atrial tachyarrhythmias, rate-modulated pacing, and advances in arrhythmia storage and remote monitoring.

Pacemaker diagnostics in atrial fibrillation: limited usefulness for therapy initiation in a pacemaker practice

AIM

We aimed to determine the practical value of pacemaker diagnostics for atrial fibrillation (AF) in an unselected general pacemaker practice, specifically workflow and initiation of anticoagulation or antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy.

METHODS

We prospectively followed consecutive pacemaker interrogations over a period of 1 year to identify patients with AF (burden from 1% to 99%). We contacted referring physicians with AF details, and then determined whether the information resulted in therapeutic changes.

RESULTS

Of the 1,100 pacemakers interrogated, 728 were dual chamber (DDDs) with AF diagnostic capability. AF was recorded in 73 (10%) but seven had limited information, leaving 66 patients; of these, 42 (63%) patients were already anticoagulated and in five (7%) patients, anticoagulation had been stopped because of complications. Initial diagnosis of AF was made by the pacemaker in 17 patients (26% of 66; 2% of 728); four (6% of 66) patients were newly initiated on anticoagulation. Of the 66 patients, 17 patients were already on AADs; 49 (74%) had satisfactory rate control or had other issues; only two (3% of 66; 0.3% of 728) received new AADs.

CONCLUSIONS

Of 728 patients with DDD pacemakers, only 17 were newly discovered to have AF, and six (0.8%) had changes in medications based on the pacemaker data. Adding pacemaker-derived data to existing clinical information had little therapeutic impact, due to a combination of cumbersome workflow, and because AF was usually known to practitioners. Developments in automated monitoring systems may provide more accessible and therapeutically useful information.