Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2007
Dynamic and dual-site atrial pacing in the prevention of atrial fibrillation: The STimolazione Atrial DInamica Multisito (STADIM) Study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
De Simone Antonio, Senatore Gaetano, Donnici Giovanni, Turco Pietro, Romano Enrico, Gazzola Carlo, Stabile G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The impact of new algorithms to consistently pace the atrium on the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unclear. Our randomized, crossover study compared the efficacy of single- and dual-site atrial pacing, with versus without dynamic atrial overdrive pacing in preventing AF.
METHODS: We studied 72 patients (mean age = 69.6 +/- 6.5 years, 34 men) with sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and paroxysmal or persistent AF, who received dual-chamber pacemakers (PM) equipped with an AF prevention algorithm and two atrial leads placed in the right atrial appendage (RAA), by passive fixation, and in the coronary sinus ostium (CS), by active fixation, respectively. At implant, the patients were randomly assigned to unipolar CS versus RAA pacing. The PM was programmed in DDDR mode 1 month after implant. Each patient underwent four study phases of equal duration: (1) unipolar, single site (CS or RAA) pacing with the AF algorithm ON (atrial lower rate = 0 ppm); (2) unipolar, single site pacing with the AF algorithm OFF (atrial lower rate = 70 bpm); (3) bipolar, dual-site pacing with AF algorithm ON; (4) bipolar, dual-site pacing with the AF algorithm OFF.
RESULTS: Among 40 patients (56%), who completed the follow-up (15 +/- 4 months) no difference was observed in the mean number of automatic mode switch (AMS) corrected for the duration of follow-up, in unipolar (5.6 +/- 22.8 vs 2.6 +/- 5.5) or bipolar mode (3.3 +/- 12.7 vs 2.1 +/- 4.9) with, respectively, the algorithm OFF or ON. With the AF prevention algorithm ON, the percentage of atrial pacing increased significantly from 78.7 +/- 22.1% to 92.4 +/- 4.9% (P < 0.001), while the average ventricular heart rate was significantly lower with the algorithm ON (62.4 +/- 17.5 vs 79.9 +/- 3 bpm (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The AF prevention algorithm increased the percentage of atrial pacing significantly, regardless of the atrial pulse configuration and pacing site, while maintaining a slower ventricular heart rate. It had no impact on the number of AMS in the unipolar and bipolar modes in patients with SSS.
METHODS: We studied 72 patients (mean age = 69.6 +/- 6.5 years, 34 men) with sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and paroxysmal or persistent AF, who received dual-chamber pacemakers (PM) equipped with an AF prevention algorithm and two atrial leads placed in the right atrial appendage (RAA), by passive fixation, and in the coronary sinus ostium (CS), by active fixation, respectively. At implant, the patients were randomly assigned to unipolar CS versus RAA pacing. The PM was programmed in DDDR mode 1 month after implant. Each patient underwent four study phases of equal duration: (1) unipolar, single site (CS or RAA) pacing with the AF algorithm ON (atrial lower rate = 0 ppm); (2) unipolar, single site pacing with the AF algorithm OFF (atrial lower rate = 70 bpm); (3) bipolar, dual-site pacing with AF algorithm ON; (4) bipolar, dual-site pacing with the AF algorithm OFF.
RESULTS: Among 40 patients (56%), who completed the follow-up (15 +/- 4 months) no difference was observed in the mean number of automatic mode switch (AMS) corrected for the duration of follow-up, in unipolar (5.6 +/- 22.8 vs 2.6 +/- 5.5) or bipolar mode (3.3 +/- 12.7 vs 2.1 +/- 4.9) with, respectively, the algorithm OFF or ON. With the AF prevention algorithm ON, the percentage of atrial pacing increased significantly from 78.7 +/- 22.1% to 92.4 +/- 4.9% (P < 0.001), while the average ventricular heart rate was significantly lower with the algorithm ON (62.4 +/- 17.5 vs 79.9 +/- 3 bpm (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The AF prevention algorithm increased the percentage of atrial pacing significantly, regardless of the atrial pulse configuration and pacing site, while maintaining a slower ventricular heart rate. It had no impact on the number of AMS in the unipolar and bipolar modes in patients with SSS.