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: 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.
    Author: Botto GL, Ricci RP, Bénézet JM, Nielsen JC, De Roy L, Piot O, Quesada A, Quaglione R, Vaccari D, Garutti C, Vainer L, Kozák M, PreFER MVP Investigators.
    Journal: Heart Rhythm; 2014 Jun; 11(6):992-1000. PubMed ID: 24418164.
    Abstract:
    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%; P = .72) and the secondary end point persistent AF (MVP: 15.4% vs DDD: 11.2%; 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 DDD. 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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]