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


BOTTO Giovanni L. RICCI Renato P. BENEZET Juan M. NIELSEN Jens Cosedis DE ROY Luc PIOT Olivier QUESADA Aurelio QUAGLIONE Raffaele VACCARI Diego GARUTTI Claudio VAINER Lidwien KOZÁK Milan

Year of publication 2014
Type Article in Periodical
Magazine / Source Heart Rhythm
MU Faculty or unit

Faculty of Medicine

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.

You are running an old browser version. We recommend updating your browser to its latest version.

More info