A New Dual‐Chamber Pacing Mode to Minimize Ventricular Pacing

Despite the low long‐term incidence of high‐degree atrioventricular (AV) block and the known negative effects of ventricular pacing, programming of the AAI mode in patients with sinus node dysfunction (SND) remains exceptional. A new pacing mode was, therefore, designed to combine the advantages of AAI with the safety of DDD pacing. AAIsafeR behaves like the AAI mode in absence of AV block. First‐ and second‐degree AV blocks are tolerated up to a predetermined, programmable limit, and conversion to DDD takes place in case of high‐degree AV block. From DDD, the device may switch back to AAI, provided AV conduction has returned. The safety of AAIsafeR was examined in 43 recipients (70 ± 12‐year old, 24 men) of dual chamber pacemakers implanted for SND or paroxysmal AV block. All patients underwent 24‐hour ambulatory electrocardiographic recordings before hospital discharge and at 1 month of follow‐up with the AAIsafeR mode activated. No AAIsafeR‐related adverse event was observed. At 1 month, the device was functioning in AAIsafeR in 28 patients (65%), and the mean rate of ventricular pacing was 0.2%± 0.4%. Appropriate switches to DDD occurred in 15 patients (35%) for frequent, unexpected AV block. AAIsafeR mode was safe and preserved ventricular function during paroxysmal AV block, while maintaining a very low rate of ventricular pacing. The performance of this new pacing mode in the prevention of atrial fibrillation will be examined in a large, controlled study.

[1]  J. Nielsen,et al.  Selecting the appropriate pacing mode for patients with sick sinus syndrome: evidence from randomized clinical trials. , 2003, Cardiac electrophysiology review.

[2]  J. Nielsen,et al.  A randomized comparison of atrial and dual-chamber pacing in 177 consecutive patients with sick sinus syndrome: echocardiographic and clinical outcome. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  G. Lamas,et al.  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 , 2003, Circulation.

[4]  H. Schieffer,et al.  AAIR Versus DDDR Pacing in the Bradycardia Tachycardia Syndrome: A Prospective, Randomized, Double‐blind, Crossover Trial , 2001, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[5]  J. Nielsen,et al.  Programming a fixed long atrioventricular delay is not effective in preventing ventricular pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome. , 1999, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[6]  J. Nielsen,et al.  Pacing in Sick Sinus Syndrome‐Need for a Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing Atrial with Dual Chamber Pacing , 1998, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[7]  L. Thuesen,et al.  Long-term follow-up of patients from a randomised trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing for sick-sinus syndrome , 1997, The Lancet.

[8]  B. Wilkoff,et al.  Chronic atrial fibrillation and stroke in paced patients with sick sinus syndrome. Relevance of clinical characteristics and pacing modalities. , 1993, Circulation.

[9]  A. Bernstein,et al.  Deleterious effects of long-term single-chamber ventricular pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome: the hidden benefits of dual-chamber pacing. , 1992, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  Improved Dual Chamber Pacing Mode in Paroxysmal Atrioventricular Conduction Disorders , 1990, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[11]  J Brandt,et al.  Long-term pacing in sinus node disease: effects of stimulation mode on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. , 1988, American heart journal.