Publication details
Managed ventricular pacing compared with conventional dual-chamber pacing for elective replacement in chronically paced patients: Results of the Prefer for Elective Replacement Managed Ventricular Pacing randomized study
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2014 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Heart Rhythm |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.03.011 |
| Field | Cardiovascular diseases incl. cardiosurgery |
| Keywords | Cardiac pacing; Managed ventricular pacing; Dual-chamber pacing; Randomized controlled trial; Outcomes |
| Description | BACKGROUND Several studies have shown that unnecessary right ventricular pacing has detrimental effects. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether minimization of ventricular pacing as compared with standard dual-chamber pacing (DDD) improves clinical outcomes in patients referred for pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) replacement. METHODS In an international single-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial, we compared DDD with managed ventricular pacing (MVP), a pacing mode developed to minimize ventricular pacing by promoting intrinsic atrioventricular conduction. We included patients referred for device replacement with >40% ventricular pacing, no cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade indication, no permanent atrial fibrillation (AF), and no permanent complete atrioventricular block. Follow-up was for 2 years. The primary end point was cardiovascular hospitalization. The intention-to-treat analysis was performed by using Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. RESULTS We randomized 605 patients (556 referred for pacemaker and 49 referred for ICD replacement; mean age 75 +/- 11 years; 365 [60%] men, at 7.7 +/- 3.3 years from first device implantation) to MVP (n = 299) or DDD (n = 306). We found no significant differences in the primary end point cardiovascular hospitalization (MVP: 16.3% vs DDD: 14.5 /0; P =.72) and the secondary end point persistent AF (MVP: 15.4% vs DDD: 11.2 /a; P =.08), permanent AF (MVP: 4.1% vs DDD: 3.1%; P =.44), and composite of death and cardiovascular hospitalization (MVP: 23.9% vs DDD: 20.2%; P =.48). MVP reduced right ventricular pacing (median 5% vs 86%; Wilcoxon, P <.0001) as compared with DOD. CONCLUSIONS In patients referred for pacemaker and ICD replacement with clinically well-tolerated long-term exposure to >40% ventricular pacing in the ventricle, a strategy to minimize ventricular pacing is not superior to standard DDD in reducing incidence of cardiovascular hospitalizations. |