4.6 Article

Atrial fibrillation in patients with sick sinus syndrome: the association with PQ-interval and percentage of ventricular pacing

Journal

EUROPACE
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages 682-689

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/eur365

Keywords

Pacing mode; Atrial fibrillation; Ventricular pacing; Clinical trial; Pacemaker

Funding

  1. Medtronic
  2. St Jude Medical
  3. Biotronik
  4. Boston Scientific
  5. Ela Medical
  6. Pfizer
  7. Danish Heart Foundation [10-04-R78-A2954-22779]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the recently published DANPACE trial, incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) was significantly higher with single-lead atrial (AAIR) pacing than with dual-chamber (DDDR) pacing. The present analysis aimed to evaluate the importance of baseline PQ-interval and percentage of ventricular pacing (VP) on AF. We analysed data on AF during follow-up in 1415 patients included in the DANPACE trial. In a subgroup of 650 patients with DDDR pacemaker, we studied whether VP, baseline PQ-interval, and programmed atrio-ventricular interval (AVI) was associated with AF burden measured as time in mode-switch (MS) detected by the pacemaker. In the entire DANPACE study population, the incidence of AF was significantly higher in patients with baseline PQ-interval 180 ms (P 0.001). Among 650 patients with DDDR pacemaker, telemetry data were available for 1.337 786 days, VP was 66 33, AF was detected at planned follow-up in 160 patients (24.6), MS occurred in 422 patients (64.9), and AF burden was marginally higher with baseline PQ-interval 180 ms (P 0.028). No significant association was detected between VP and MS (Spearmans ? 0.056, P 0.154). MS was not different between minimal-paced programmed AVI 100 and 100 ms (median value), respectively (P 0.60). The present study indicates that a longer baseline PQ-interval is associated with an increased risk of AF in patients with sick sinus syndrome. Atrial fibrillation burden is not associated with the percentage of VP or the length of the programmed AVI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available