32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Long-term clinical effects of ventricular pacing reduction with a changeover mode to minimize ventricular pacing in a general pacemaker population

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aim

          Right ventricular pacing (VP) has been hypothesized to increase the risk in heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF). The ANSWER study evaluated, whether an AAI-DDD changeover mode to minimize VP (SafeR) improves outcome compared with DDD in a general dual-chamber pacemaker population.

          Methods and results

          ANSWER was a randomized controlled multicentre trial assessing SafeR vs. standard DDD in sinus node disease (SND) or AV block (AVB) patients. After a 1-month run-in period, they were randomized (1 : 1) and followed for 3 years. Pre-specified co-primary end-points were VP and the composite of hospitalization for HF, AF, or cardioversion. Pre-specified secondary end-points were cardiac death or HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular hospitalizations. ANSWER enrolled 650 patients (52.0% SND, 48% AVB) at 43 European centres and randomized in SafeR ( n = 314) or DDD ( n = 318). The SafeR mode showed a significant decrease in VP compared with DDD (11.5 vs. 93.6%, P < 0.0001 at 3 years). Deaths and syncope did not differ between randomization arms. No significant difference between groups [HR = 0.78; 95% CI (0.48–1.25); P = 0.30] was found in the time to event of the co-primary composite of hospitalization for HF, AF, or cardioversion, nor in the individual components. SafeR showed a 51% risk reduction (RR) in experiencing cardiac death or HF hospitalization [HR = 0.49; 95% CI (0.27–0.90); P = 0.02] and 30% RR in experiencing cardiovascular hospitalizations [HR = 0.70; 95% CI (0.49–1.00); P = 0.05].

          Conclusion

          SafeR safely and significantly reduced VP in a general pacemaker population though had no effect on hospitalization for HF, AF, or cardioversion, when compared with DDD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction.

          Dual-chamber (DDDR) pacing preserves AV synchrony and may reduce heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with ventricular (VVIR) pacing in sinus node dysfunction (SND). However, DDDR pacing often results in prolonged QRS durations (QRSd) as the result of right ventricular stimulation, and ventricular desynchronization may result. The effect of pacing-induced ventricular desynchronization in patients with normal baseline QRSd is unknown. Baseline QRSd was obtained from 12-lead ECGs before pacemaker implantation in MOST, a 2010-patient, 6-year, randomized trial of DDDR versus VVIR pacing in SND. Cumulative percent ventricular paced (Cum%VP) was determined from stored pacemaker data. Baseline QRSd 40%) and VVIR (HR 2.56 [95% CI, 1.48 to 4.43] for Cum%VP >80%). The risk of AF increased linearly with Cum%VP from 0% to 85% in both groups (DDDR, HR 1.36 [95% CI, 1.09, 1.69]; VVIR, HR 1.21 [95% CI 1.02, 1.43], for each 25% increase in Cum%VP). Model results were unaffected by adjustment for known baseline predictors of HF hospitalization and AF. Ventricular desynchronization imposed by ventricular pacing even when AV synchrony is preserved increases the risk of HF hospitalization and AF in SND with normal baseline QRSd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Biventricular pacing for atrioventricular block and systolic dysfunction.

            Right ventricular pacing restores an adequate heart rate in patients with atrioventricular block, but high percentages of right ventricular apical pacing may promote left ventricular systolic dysfunction. We evaluated whether biventricular pacing might reduce mortality, morbidity, and adverse left ventricular remodeling in such patients. We enrolled patients who had indications for pacing with atrioventricular block; New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I, II, or III heart failure; and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less. Patients received a cardiac-resynchronization pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (the latter if the patient had an indication for defibrillation therapy) and were randomly assigned to standard right ventricular pacing or biventricular pacing. The primary outcome was the time to death from any cause, an urgent care visit for heart failure that required intravenous therapy, or a 15% or more increase in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index. Of 918 patients enrolled, 691 underwent randomization and were followed for an average of 37 months. The primary outcome occurred in 190 of 342 patients (55.6%) in the right-ventricular-pacing group, as compared with 160 of 349 (45.8%) in the biventricular-pacing group. Patients randomly assigned to biventricular pacing had a significantly lower incidence of the primary outcome over time than did those assigned to right ventricular pacing (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% credible interval, 0.60 to 0.90); results were similar in the pacemaker and ICD groups. Left ventricular lead-related complications occurred in 6.4% of patients. Biventricular pacing was superior to conventional right ventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular block and left ventricular systolic dysfunction with NYHA class I, II, or III heart failure. (Funded by Medtronic; BLOCK HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00267098.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Dual-chamber pacing or ventricular backup pacing in patients with an implantable defibrillator: the Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial.

              Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy with backup ventricular pacing increases survival in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Most currently implanted ICD devices provide dual-chamber pacing therapy. The most common comorbid cause for mortality in this population is congestive heart failure. To determine the efficacy of dual-chamber pacing compared with backup ventricular pacing in patients with standard indications for ICD implantation but without indications for antibradycardia pacing. The Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial, a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. A total of 506 patients with indications for ICD therapy were enrolled between October 2000 and September 2002 at 37 US centers. All patients had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40% or less, no indication for antibradycardia pacemaker therapy, and no persistent atrial arrhythmias. All patients had an ICD with dual-chamber, rate-responsive pacing capability implanted. Patients were randomly assigned to have the ICDs programmed to ventricular backup pacing at 40/min (VVI-40; n = 256) or dual-chamber rate-responsive pacing at 70/min (DDDR-70; n = 250). Maximal tolerated medical therapy for left ventricular dysfunction, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers, was prescribed to all patients. Composite end point of time to death or first hospitalization for congestive heart failure. One-year survival free of the composite end point was 83.9% for patients treated with VVI-40 compared with 73.3% for patients treated with DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.44). The components of the composite end point, mortality of 6.5% for VVI-40 vs 10.1% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.84-3.09) and hospitalization for congestive heart failure of 13.3% for VVI-40 vs 22.6% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.97-2.46), also trended in favor of VVI-40 programming. For patients with standard indications for ICD therapy, no indication for cardiac pacing, and an LVEF of 40% or less, dual-chamber pacing offers no clinical advantage over ventricular backup pacing and may be detrimental by increasing the combined end point of death or hospitalization for heart failure.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur Heart J
                Eur. Heart J
                eurheartj
                ehj
                European Heart Journal
                Oxford University Press
                0195-668X
                1522-9645
                14 January 2015
                01 September 2014
                01 September 2014
                : 36
                : 3
                : 151-157
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Charité University Hospital, Experimental and Clinical Research Center (ECRC) , Berlin, Germany
                [2 ]Department of Cardiology, Havelland Kliniken GmbH , Nauen, Germany
                [3 ]Arrhythmia Department, Clinique Pasteur , Toulouse, France
                [4 ]Arrhythmia Department, Cardiovascular Institute , San Carlos University Hospital , Madrid, Spain
                [5 ]Arrhythmia Department, Hospital Ramón y Cajal , Madrid, Spain
                [6 ]North Hospital , Saint-Etienne, France
                [7 ]Narodny Ustav Srdcovych a Cievnych Chorob , Bratislava, Slovak Republic
                [8 ]Klinikum Coburg , Coburg, Germany
                [9 ]Herzzentrum Brandenburg, Cardiology , Bernau, Germany
                [10 ]Hospital Clinico Universitario de Santiago , Santiago de Compostela, Spain
                [11 ]Sorin Group International SA , Lausanne, Switzerland
                [12 ]Arrhythmia Unit, Cardiology Department, University Hospital , Grenoble, France
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Tel: +49 3321421100, Fax: +49 332142151092, Email: martin.stockburger@ 123456charite.de
                Article
                ehu336
                10.1093/eurheartj/ehu336
                4297468
                25179761
                d0bfc80a-f82a-4aeb-b494-55eb029c04c7
                © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 29 June 2014
                : 24 July 2014
                : 28 July 2014
                Categories
                FASTTrack Clinical Trial Update
                Arrhythmia/Electrophysiology
                Fast Track
                Editor's choice

                Cardiovascular Medicine
                dual-chamber pacing,minimization of ventricular pacing,heart failure,atrial fibrillation,randomized controlled trial,safer

                Comments

                Comment on this article