Patient-activated Anti-tachycardia pacing in adult congenital heart disease

Introduction

In adults with congenital heart disease, intra‐atrial reentrant tachycardia (IART) is a common arrhythmia that causes significant morbidity and mortality. One treatment option for IART is antitachycardia pacing. Atrial antitachycardia pacing algorithms deliver therapy for IART with ≥2:1 conduction, but most algorithms will not recognize IART with 1:1 conduction. Temporary Patient Activated Rx (TPARx) is Medtronic software that can be installed in antitachycardia pacemakers allowing patients to deliver therapies on demand for IART with 1:1 conduction.

Methods

Retrospective chart review at a single institution of all patients who had TPARx installed into their pacemaker.

Results

Four adults with single ventricle congenital heart disease and IART underwent Fontan conversion, arrhythmia surgery, and placement of an epicardial dual‐chamber antitachycardia pacemaker. They had recurrent IART with a long cycle length and 1:1 conduction that failed to trigger antitachycardia pacing therapies. TPARx software was programmed into their pacemakers to allow recognition and treatment of IART with 1:1 conduction. Mean follow‐up duration after TPARx programming was 4.9 years. Each patient received at least one successful antitachycardia pacing therapy via TPARx – range 0.4–26 treated IART episodes per year. There were no atrial or ventricular arrhythmias induced with antitachycardia pacing. Two patients were able to discontinue anticoagulation after TPARx installation.

Conclusion

This series demonstrates the use of TPARx software as part of a long‐term IART management strategy in select patients with IART who have failed more conventional therapies.

Implication of ventricular pacing burden and atrial pacing therapies on the progression of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common after pacemaker implantation. However, the impact of pacemaker algorithms in AF prevention is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of pacing algorithms in preventing AF progression.

METHODS

A systematic search of articles using the PubMed and Embase databases resulted in a total of 754 references. After exclusions, 21 randomized controlled trials (8336 patients) were analyzed, comprising studies reporting ventricular pacing percentage (VP%) (AAI vs DDD, n = 1; reducing ventricular pacing [RedVP] algorithms, n = 2); and atrial pacing therapies (atrial preference pacing [APP], n = 14; atrial antitachycardia pacing [aATP]+APP, n = 3; RedVP+APP+aATP, n = 1).

RESULTS

Low VP% (<10%) lead to a nonsignificant reduction in the progression of AF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-1.13; P = .21; I² = 67%) compared to high VP% (>10%). APP algorithm reduced premature atrial complexes (PAC) burden (mean difference [MD] -1117.74; 95% CI -1852.36 to -383.11; P = .003; I² = 67%) but did not decrease AF burden (MD 8.20; 95% CI -5.39 to 21.80; P = .24; I² = 17%) or AF episodes (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.24 to 0.25; P = .98; I² = 0%). Similarly, aATP+APP programming showed no significant difference in AF progression (odds ratio 0.65; 95% CI 0.36-1.14; P = .13; I² = 61%). No serious adverse events related to algorithm were reported.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrated that algorithms to reduce VP% can be considered safe. Low burden VP% did not significantly suppress AF progression. The atrial pacing therapy algorithms could suppress PAC burden but did not prevent AF progression.

Important Parameters for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Selection

The efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in reducing the risk of sudden cardiac death has been well established by several clinical trials. Several factors relating to device characteristics, patient attributes, and comorbidities should be considered when selecting the appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillators for each patient. This review examines some of these issues.

Pacing to prevent atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pacemakers are frequently implanted in patients with atrial fibrillation. Many patients with pacemakers also develop atrial fibrillation. Over a period of time, through many studies on different pacing modes, sites, and algorithms, significant insights have been gained in the field of treatment and prevention of atrial fibrillation. The purpose of this review is to discuss some aspects of the scientific basis, current standards and possible future research related to cardiac pacing for prevention of atrial fibrillation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Trials involving pacing at the alternative pacing site per se or in combination with specific algorithms for prevention of atrial fibrillation have not shown consistent results. Recently, a new generation of antitachycardia pacing therapies has brought on a new optimism with promising outcome data of reduction in permanent atrial fibrillation, cardiovascular hospitalizations, and mortality.

SUMMARY

Multiple trials and clinical observational studies of different pacing methods and algorithms, with the exception of newer therapies in conjunction with atrial pacing algorithms, have not been shown to prevent atrial fibrillation. Hence, while permanent pacing is indicated for sinus node dysfunction and conduction abnormalities in patients with or without atrial fibrillation, the prevailing data in the literature does not support implantation of a permanent pacemaker for prevention of atrial fibrillation per se.