Europace Advance Access originally published online on October 3, 2007
Europace 2007 9(11):999-1001; doi:10.1093/europace/eum173
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EDITORIALS
What is the role of the pacing rate in the prevention of atrial tachyarrhythmias?
Division of Clinical Electrophysiology, Department of Cardiology, J.W. Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany
* Corresponding author. Tel: +49 69 6301 6512; fax: +49 69 6301 6341. E-mail address: c.w.israel{at}em.uni-frankfurt.de
In 1998, Delfaut et al.1
reported about 30 patients with drug-refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) which recurred in all individuals despite continuation of antiarrhythmic drugs within approximately 1 month, but was suppressed by pacing for a mean of 143 days. Although the main scope of this study was the assessment of dual-site right atrial pacing (which further prolonged the arrhythmia-free interval to 195 days), this observation stimulated interest in atrial overdrive pacing as a potential therapy of AF. Of note, all patients in this study had spontaneous or drug-induced bradycardia, and the investigators carefully adjusted pacing rate and drug dose until a proportion of atrial pacing during sinus rhythm of >80% was achieved. Similarly, Garrigue et al.2 calculated the mean 24 h heart rate in 22 patients with a dual-chamber pacemaker via the memory of the device and programmed the lower pacing rate just 10 bpm above this value to perform atrial overdrive at an individually optimized rate. Again, overdrive pacing, in this case at a mean of 75 bpm, was associated with a reduction or complete prevention of AF recurrences. These and other observations led to the hypothesis that atrial overdrive pacing, i.e. pacing faster than the sinus rate, for a significant proportion of time may prevent AF. As the PA3 trial showed, atrial pacing in the DDDR mode with 70 bpm achieved atrial pacing for only 67% of the time in patients without sinus bradycardia and was unable to prolong the time to AF recurrence.3 Pacing at higher rates such as 90 bpm can achieve atrial overdrive for >80% of the time but is not tolerated by a number of patients.4 Therefore, pacing algorithms that maintain the atrial pacing rate just above the sinus rate were developed, thereby providing >90% atrial pacing during sinus rhythm without a significant rate increase.5 These pacing algorithms, providing ‘dynamic-rate’ instead of ‘fixed-rate’ atrial overdrive, were tested against conventional dual-chamber pacing (DDD or DDDR) at 60 bpm but failed to demonstrate a significant impact on AF recurrences in a number of studies,6–9 whereas only one study found a reduction in the number of days with symptomatic AF.10
Therefore, the question arises if the percentage of atrial pacing or rather the lower rate limit is the key to atrial preventive pacing. In individual patients, an association between the occurrence of atrial premature beats or the initiation of AF and a rate decrease below an absolute value can be observed. Figure 1 shows such an example using a pacemaker monitoring function. In this patient, an atrial overdrive algorithm maintains the pacing rate above the intrinsic value, slowly decreasing the pacing rate as long as no intrinsic events are seen towards a minimum value of 60 bpm However, whenever the pacing rate approaches 60 bpm, intrinsic activity appears in form of atrial premature beats. This manoeuvre reiterates until premature beats finally trigger AF. Programming the lower rate limit to 70 bpm abolished AF recurrences in this patient. A detailed analysis of the atrial rate and rhythm just before AF initiation using an implanted dual-chamber pacemaker revealed that 39% of AF episodes seemed to be triggered by some form of bradycardia.11
|
These observations suggest that at least in some patients, programming the lower pacing rate may play a role in the prevention of AF. Therefore, the Atrial Overdrive Pacing (AOP) study addresses an important and insufficiently studied question.12
In this study, 145 patients received dual-chamber pacing at 60 bpm before they were randomized to a lower pacing rate of (i) 70 bpm, (ii) 70 bpm with a rate decrease to 65 bpm at rest, or (iii) 80 bpm with a rate decrease to 65 bpm at rest. In a cross-over design completed in 99 patients, each programming was applied for 3 months. The authors did not find any difference in the number of mode-switching episodes between the three settings.
One of the problems associated with device-derived parameters for quantification of AF recurrence becomes rapidly evident looking at the results of this study: AF occurs at a highly variable rate and does not occur at random but in clusters as has been shown before.13–15 In the present study, the mean number of mode-switching episodes was 126, 378, 357, and 136 in the four study periods of 3 months each. At the same time, the standard deviation was 596, 1403, 1482, and 400, illustrating this problem. Owing to this variability, the number of patients and the study period in each pacing mode are most likely unable to detect any treatment effect. Additionally, the authors chose a parameter less useful to assess the treatment effect: Mode switching critically depends on programmed settings; if atrial sensitivity is not sufficiently high to continuously detect AF to an extent sufficient for the maintenance of mode switching, a single, long AF episode may be cut into hundreds of short mode-switching episodes distorting this outcome parameter. For this reason, current studies with device-based monitoring of AF recurrence typically use the ‘AF burden’, i.e. the device-derived cumulative time in AF as a percentage of the total follow-up period, together with an AF detection algorithm independent of mode switching.
Several other aspects of this study have to be considered. First, the cross-over study design carries the risk of carry-over effects that affect every successive study period. Secondly, the mean value for mode-switching episodes may be not representative for the treatment effect under investigation. It may be clinically more important how many patients were free of AF >30 sec than to compare some mean values without any clear clinical implication (what does a reduction in the number of mode-switching episodes from 357 to 136 mean clinically?). Thirdly, the concept of a rest rate as evaluated in this study may be unsuccessful in patients with vagally induced or bradycardia-dependent AF. Vagal predominance will be most prominent in periods of rest which are least covered by overdrive pacing in this concept, and the rate decrease from the normal lower rate (e.g. 80 bpm in study phase C) to the rest rate (65 bpm in study phase C) may act as a trigger of AF. Fourth, atrial leads were implanted in the right atrial appendage, which is most likely less successful in preventing AF than pacing from the atrial septum.16,17 Finally, unnecessary right ventricular pacing was not systematically avoided in this study. There is emerging evidence that right ventricular stimulation in context with dual-chamber pacing in sinus node disease increases the risk of developing AF18 and that the efficacy of atrial preventive pacing may be reduced by ventricular pacing.8,19 Dual-chamber devices have to be programmed in an unusual way to avoid ventricular pacing during atrial overdrive (e.g. to an AV delay of 350 ms) or should even better be fitted with dedicated algorithms providing mode switching between AAIR and DDDR pacing to prevent unnecessary right ventricular pacing.20,21 It is important to note in this context that AAIR, instead of DDDR overdrive pacing, has been successful in reducing the number of AF episodes in the PAF-PACE study.22
However, it is easy to criticize a study, particularly if results are not welcome. It has to be realized that the AOP study did not show a significant effect of lower rate programming on the efficacy of atrial pacing for AF prevention. Further studies, however, seem to be justified to assess the value of pacing optimized according to current concepts: atrial septal lead position, prevention of ventricular pacing, AF burden as study endpoint, and atrial electrograms to verify correct detection of the beginning and the end of AF.
Conflict of interest: C.W.I. is a member of the Advisory Board and Speaker's Bureau of Guidant Germany, Medtronic Inc., Sorin Group, and St. Jude Medical; and participates in studies sponsored by Medtronic Inc. and St. Jude Medical.
Footnotes
The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of Europace, the European Heart Rhythm Association or the European Society of Cardiology.
References
[1] Delfaut P, Saksena S, Prakash A, Krol RB. Long-term outcome of patients with drug-refractory atrial flutter and fibrillation after single- and dual-site right atrial pacing for arrhythmia prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol (1998) 32:1900–8.
[2] Garrigue S, Barold SS, Cazeau S, Gencel L, Jais P, Haissaguerre M, et al. Prevention of atrial arrhythmias during DDD pacing by atrial overdrive. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1998) 21:1751–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
[3] Gillis AM, Wyse DG, Connolly SJ, Dubuc M, Philippon F, Yee R, et al. Atrial pacing periablation for prevention of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Circulation (1999) 99:2553–8.
[4] Ward KJ, Willett JE, Bucknall C, Gill JS, Kamalvand K. Atrial arrhythmia suppression by atrial overdrive pacing: pacemaker Holter assessment. Europace (2001) 3:108–14.
[5] Ricci R, Santini M, Puglisi A, Azzolini P, Capucci A, Pignalberi C, et al. Impact of consistent atrial pacing algorithm on premature atrial complex number and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation recurrences in brady-tachy syndrome: a randomized prospective cross over study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol (2001) 5:33–44.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[6] Israel CW, Hügl B, Unterberg-Buchwald C, Lawo T, Kennis I, Hettrick D, et al. Pace-Termination and pacing for prevention of atrial tachyarrhythmias: Results from a multicenter study with an implantable device for atrial therapy. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2001) 12:1121–28.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[7] Lee MA, Weachter R, Pollak S, Kremers MS, Naik A, Silverman R, et al. The effect of atrial pacing therapies on atrial tachyarrhythmia burden and frequency. J Am Coll Cardiol (2003) 41:1926–32.
[8] Padeletti L, Pürerfellner H, Adler SW, Waller TJ, Harvey M, Horvitz L, et al. Combined efficacy of atrial septal lead placement and atrial pacing algorithms for prevention of paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmia. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2003) 14:1189–95.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[9] Blanc JJ, De Roy L, Mansourati J, Poezevara Y, Marcon JL, Schoels W, et al. Atrial pacing for prevention of atrial fibrillation. Assessment of simultaneously implemented algorithms. Europace (2004) 6:371–9.
[10] Carlson MD, Ip J, Messenger J, Beau S, Kalbfleisch S, Gervais P, et al. A new pacemaker algorithm for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol (2003) 42:627–33.
[11] Hoffmann E, Sulke N, Edvardsson N, Ruiter J, Lewalter T, Capucci A, et al. New insights into the initiation of atrial fibrillation: a detailed intraindividual and interindividual analysis of the spontaneous onset of atrial fibrillation using new diagnostic pacemaker features. Circulation (2006) 113:1933–41.
[12] Kantharia BK, Freedman RA, Hoekenga D, Tomassoni G, Worley S, Sorrentino R, et al. Increased base rate of atrial pacing for prevention of atrial fibrillation after implantation of a dual chamber pacemaker: Insights from the Atrial Overdrive Pacing (AOP) study. Europace (2007) 9. doi:10.1093/europace/eum170.
[13] Kaemmerer WF, Rose MS, Mehra R. Distribution of patients' paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmia episodes: implications for detection of treatment efficacy. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2001) 12:121–30.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[14] Padeletti L, Santini M, Boriani G, Botto G, Capucci A, Gulizia M, et al. Temporal variability of atrial tachyarrhythmia burden in bradycardia-tachycardia syndrome patients. Eur Heart J (2005) 26:165–72.
[15] Ziegler PD, Koehler JL, Mehra R. Comparison of continuous versus intermittent monitoring of atrial arrhythmias. Heart Rhythm (2006) 3:1445–52.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[16] Becker R, Klinkott R, Bauer A, Senges JC, Schreiner KD, Voss F, et al. Multisite pacing for prevention of atrial tachyarrhythmias: potential mechanisms. J Am Coll Cardiol (2000) 35:1939–46.
[17] Bailin SJ, Adler S, Giudici M. Prevention of chronic atrial fibrillation by pacing in the region of Bachmann's bundle: results of a multicenter randomized trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2001) 12:912–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[18] Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, Greenspon AJ, Freedman RA, Lee KL, et al. Adverse effects of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal basline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation (2003) 107:2932–7.
[19] Pajitnev D, Israel CW, Maid M, Duray G, Wegener F, Ehrlich JR, et al. The amount of ventricular pacing determines success of pacing for prevention of atrial fibrillation. (Abstract). Heart Rhythm (2007) 4((suppl.)).
[20] Sweeney MO, Ellenbogen KA, Casavant D, Betzold R, Sheldon T, Tang F, et al. Multicenter, prospective, randomized safety and efficacy study of a new atrial-based managed ventricular pacing mode (MVP) in dual chamber ICDs. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2005) 16:811–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[21] Gillis AM, Purerfellner H, Israel CW, Sunthorn H, Kacet S, Anelli-Monti M, et al. Reducing unnecessary right ventricular pacing with the managed ventricular pacing mode in patients with sinus node disease and AV block. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2006) 29:697–705.[CrossRef][Medline]
[22] Wiberg S, Lonnerholm S, Jensen SM, Blomstrom P, Ringqvist I, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C. Effect of right atrial overdrive pacing in the prevention of symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a multicenter randomized study, the PAF-PACE study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2003) 26:1841–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
Related articles in Europace:
- Increased base rate of atrial pacing for prevention of atrial fibrillation after implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker: insights from the Atrial Overdrive Pacing Study
- Bharat K. Kantharia, Roger A. Freedman, David Hoekenga, Gery Tomassoni, Seth Worley, Robert Sorrentino, David Steinhaus, Joel M. Wolkowicz, Zaffer A. Syed, and and the AOP Study Investigators
Europace 2007 9: 1024-1030.[Abstract] [FREE Full Text]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||