These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Dynamic and dual-site atrial pacing in the prevention of atrial fibrillation: The STimolazione Atrial DInamica Multisito (STADIM) Study.
    Author: De Simone A, Senatore G, Donnici G, Turco P, Romano E, Gazzola C, Stabile G.
    Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 2007 Jan; 30 Suppl 1():S71-4. PubMed ID: 17302722.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The impact of new algorithms to consistently pace the atrium on the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unclear. Our randomized, crossover study compared the efficacy of single- and dual-site atrial pacing, with versus without dynamic atrial overdrive pacing in preventing AF. METHODS: We studied 72 patients (mean age = 69.6 +/- 6.5 years, 34 men) with sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and paroxysmal or persistent AF, who received dual-chamber pacemakers (PM) equipped with an AF prevention algorithm and two atrial leads placed in the right atrial appendage (RAA), by passive fixation, and in the coronary sinus ostium (CS), by active fixation, respectively. At implant, the patients were randomly assigned to unipolar CS versus RAA pacing. The PM was programmed in DDDR mode 1 month after implant. Each patient underwent four study phases of equal duration: (1) unipolar, single site (CS or RAA) pacing with the AF algorithm ON (atrial lower rate = 0 ppm); (2) unipolar, single site pacing with the AF algorithm OFF (atrial lower rate = 70 bpm); (3) bipolar, dual-site pacing with AF algorithm ON; (4) bipolar, dual-site pacing with the AF algorithm OFF. RESULTS: Among 40 patients (56%), who completed the follow-up (15 +/- 4 months) no difference was observed in the mean number of automatic mode switch (AMS) corrected for the duration of follow-up, in unipolar (5.6 +/- 22.8 vs 2.6 +/- 5.5) or bipolar mode (3.3 +/- 12.7 vs 2.1 +/- 4.9) with, respectively, the algorithm OFF or ON. With the AF prevention algorithm ON, the percentage of atrial pacing increased significantly from 78.7 +/- 22.1% to 92.4 +/- 4.9% (P < 0.001), while the average ventricular heart rate was significantly lower with the algorithm ON (62.4 +/- 17.5 vs 79.9 +/- 3 bpm (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The AF prevention algorithm increased the percentage of atrial pacing significantly, regardless of the atrial pulse configuration and pacing site, while maintaining a slower ventricular heart rate. It had no impact on the number of AMS in the unipolar and bipolar modes in patients with SSS.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]