Thibault Bernard, Ducharme Anique, Baranchuk Adrian, Dubuc Marc, Dyrda Katia, Guerra Peter G, Macle Laurent, Mondésert Blandine, Rivard Léna, Roy Denis, Talajic Mario, Andrade Jason, Nitzsché Rémi, Khairy Paul
Montreal Heart Institute and Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (B.T., A.D., M.D., K.D., P.G.G., L.M., B.M., R., D.R., M.T., J.A., P.K.).
Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada (A.B.).
J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 Jul 23;4(7):e001983. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.001983.
It is well recognized that right ventricular apical pacing can have deleterious effects on ventricular function. We performed a head-to-head comparison of the SafeR pacing algorithm versus DDD pacing with a long atrioventricular delay in a heterogeneous population of patients with dual-chamber pacemakers.
In a multicenter prospective double-blinded randomized trial conducted at 10 centers in Canada, 373 patients, age 71±11 years, with indications for dual chamber DC pacemakers were randomized 1:1 to SafeR or DDD pacing with a long atrioventricular delay (250 ms). The primary objective was twofold: (1) reduction in the proportion of ventricular paced beats at 1 year; and (2) impact on atrial fibrillation burden at 3 years, defined as the ratio between cumulative duration of mode-switches divided by follow-up time. Statistical significance of both co-primary end points was required for the trial to be considered positive. At 1 year of follow-up, the median proportion of ventricular-paced beats was 4.0% with DDD versus 0% with SafeR (P<0.001). At 3 years of follow-up, the atrial fibrillation burden was not significantly reduced with SafeR versus DDD (median 0.00%, interquartile range [0.00% to 0.23%] versus median 0.01%, interquartile range [0.00% to 0.44%], respectively, P=0.178]), despite a persistent reduction in the median proportion of ventricular-paced beats (10% with DDD compared to 0% with SafeR).
A ventricular-paced rate <1% was safely achieved with SafeR in a population with a wide spectrum of indications for dual-chamber pacing. However, the lower percentage of ventricular pacing did not translate into a significant reduction in atrial fibrillation burden.
URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ Unique identifier: NCT01219621.
右心室心尖部起搏对心室功能具有有害影响,这一点已得到广泛认可。我们在植入双腔起搏器的异质性患者群体中,对SafeR起搏算法与具有长房室延迟的DDD起搏进行了直接比较。
在加拿大10个中心进行的一项多中心前瞻性双盲随机试验中,373例年龄为71±11岁、有双腔直流电起搏器植入指征的患者按1:1随机分为SafeR起搏组或具有长房室延迟(250毫秒)的DDD起搏组。主要目标有两个:(1)降低1年时心室起搏搏动的比例;(2)评估3年时对房颤负荷的影响,定义为模式转换累积持续时间与随访时间之比。试验被视为阳性需要两个共同主要终点均具有统计学意义。随访1年时,DDD组心室起搏搏动的中位数比例为4.0%,而SafeR组为0%(P<0.001)。随访3年时,与DDD组相比,SafeR组的房颤负荷未显著降低(中位数分别为0.00%,四分位间距[0.00%至0.23%]与中位数0.01%,四分位间距[0.00%至0.44%],P = 0.178),尽管心室起搏搏动的中位数比例持续降低(DDD组为10%,SafeR组为0%)。
在有广泛双腔起搏指征的人群中,SafeR可安全实现心室起搏率<1%。然而,较低的心室起搏百分比并未转化为房颤负荷的显著降低。
网址:https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ 唯一标识符:NCT01219621。