Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Aug;16(8):1204-1214.
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2019.02.020. Epub 2019 Feb 14.

Implication of ventricular pacing burden and atrial pacing therapies on the progression of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Dian A Munawar  1 , Rajiv Mahajan  2 , Thomas A Agbaedeng  3 , Anand Thiyagarajah  3 , Darragh J Twomey  3 , Kashif Khokhar  3 , Catherine O'Shea  3 , Glenn D Young  3 , Kurt C Roberts-Thomson  3 , Muhammad Munawar  4 , Dennis H Lau  3 , Prashanthan Sanders  5
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Implication of ventricular pacing burden and atrial pacing therapies on the progression of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Dian A Munawar et al. Heart Rhythm. 2019 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common after pacemaker implantation. However, the impact of pacemaker algorithms in AF prevention is not well understood.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of pacing algorithms in preventing AF progression.

Methods: A systematic search of articles using the PubMed and Embase databases resulted in a total of 754 references. After exclusions, 21 randomized controlled trials (8336 patients) were analyzed, comprising studies reporting ventricular pacing percentage (VP%) (AAI vs DDD, n = 1; reducing ventricular pacing [RedVP] algorithms, n = 2); and atrial pacing therapies (atrial preference pacing [APP], n = 14; atrial antitachycardia pacing [aATP]+APP, n = 3; RedVP+APP+aATP, n = 1).

Results: Low VP% (<10%) lead to a nonsignificant reduction in the progression of AF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-1.13; P = .21; I2 = 67%) compared to high VP% (>10%). APP algorithm reduced premature atrial complexes (PAC) burden (mean difference [MD] -1117.74; 95% CI -1852.36 to -383.11; P = .003; I2 = 67%) but did not decrease AF burden (MD 8.20; 95% CI -5.39 to 21.80; P = .24; I2 = 17%) or AF episodes (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.24 to 0.25; P = .98; I2 = 0%). Similarly, aATP+APP programming showed no significant difference in AF progression (odds ratio 0.65; 95% CI 0.36-1.14; P = .13; I2 = 61%). No serious adverse events related to algorithm were reported.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrated that algorithms to reduce VP% can be considered safe. Low burden VP% did not significantly suppress AF progression. The atrial pacing therapy algorithms could suppress PAC burden but did not prevent AF progression.

Keywords: Arial preference pacing; Atrial fibrillation; Atrial pacing therapies; Minimize ventricular pacing; Reduced ventricular pacing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms