• Something wrong with this record ?

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

GL. Botto, RP. Ricci, JM. Bénézet, JC. Nielsen, L. De Roy, O. Piot, A. Quesada, R. Quaglione, D. Vaccari, C. Garutti, L. Vainer, M. Kozák, . ,

. 2014 ; 11 (6) : 992-1000.

Language English Country United States

Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc15014542

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.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc15014542
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20150427105850.0
007      
ta
008      
150420s2014 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.01.011 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)24418164
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Botto, Giovanni L $u S. Anna Hospital, Como, Italy. Electronic address: gluca.botto@gmail.com.
245    10
$a 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 / $c GL. Botto, RP. Ricci, JM. Bénézet, JC. Nielsen, L. De Roy, O. Piot, A. Quesada, R. Quaglione, D. Vaccari, C. Garutti, L. Vainer, M. Kozák, . ,
520    9_
$a 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.
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
650    _2
$a kardiostimulace umělá $x metody $7 D002304
650    _2
$a defibrilátory implantabilní $7 D017147
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a analýza podle původního léčebného záměru $7 D057194
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a kardiostimulátor $7 D010138
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a fibrilace komor $x terapie $7 D014693
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Ricci, Renato P $u San Filippo Neri Hospital, Rome, Italy.
700    1_
$a Bénézet, Juan M $u Hospital General de Ciudad, Ciudad Real, Spain.
700    1_
$a Nielsen, Jens Cosedis $u Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Aarhus N, Denmark.
700    1_
$a De Roy, Luc $u Cliniques Universitaires UCL de Mont-Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium.
700    1_
$a Piot, Olivier $u Centre Cardiologique du Nord, Saint-Denis, France.
700    1_
$a Quesada, Aurelio $u Consorcio Hospital General Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
700    1_
$a Quaglione, Raffaele $u Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
700    1_
$a Vaccari, Diego $u Presidio Ospedaliero di Montebelluna, Montebelluna, Italy.
700    1_
$a Garutti, Claudio $u Medtronic Bakken Research Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
700    1_
$a Vainer, Lidwien $u Medtronic Bakken Research Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
700    1_
$a Kozák, Milan $u Fakultni nemocnice Brno Bohunice, Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a ,
773    0_
$w MED00156180 $t Heart rhythm the official journal of the Heart Rhythm Society $x 1556-3871 $g Roč. 11, č. 6 (2014), s. 992-1000
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24418164 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20150420 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20150427110154 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1072123 $s 897420
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2014 $b 11 $c 6 $d 992-1000 $i 1556-3871 $m Heart rhythm $n Heart Rhythm $x MED00156180
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20150420

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options