Aims: Physiological activation of the heart using algorithms to minimize right ventricular pacing (RVPm) may be an effective strategy to reduce adverse events in patients requiring anti-bradycardia therapies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate current evidence on clinical outcomes for patients treated with RVPm algorithms compared to dual-chamber pacing (DDD). Methods and results: We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed database. The predefined endpoints were the occurrence of persistent/permanent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization, all-cause death, and adverse symptoms. We also aimed to explore the differential effects of algorithms in studies enrolling a high percentage of atrioventricular block (AVB) patients. Eight studies (7229 patients) were included in the analysis. Compared to DDD pacing, patients using RVPm algorithms showed a lower risk of PerAF [odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.97] and CV hospitalization (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.97). No significant difference was found for all-cause death (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.78-1.30) or adverse symptoms (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81-1.29). No significant interaction was found between the use of the RVPm strategy and studies enrolling a high percentage of AVB patients. The pooled mean RVP percentage for RVPm algorithms was 7.96% (95% CI 3.13-20.25), as compared with 45.11% (95% CI 26.64-76.38) of DDD pacing. Conclusion: Algorithms for RVPm may be effective in reducing the risk of PerAF and CV hospitalization in patients requiring anti-bradycardia therapies, without an increased risk of adverse symptoms. These results are also consistent for studies enrolling a high percentage of AVB patients.
Systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact on outcomes of device algorithms for minimizing right ventricular pacing
Mantovani, Marta;Zuin, Marco;Bertini, Matteo;
2024
Abstract
Aims: Physiological activation of the heart using algorithms to minimize right ventricular pacing (RVPm) may be an effective strategy to reduce adverse events in patients requiring anti-bradycardia therapies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate current evidence on clinical outcomes for patients treated with RVPm algorithms compared to dual-chamber pacing (DDD). Methods and results: We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed database. The predefined endpoints were the occurrence of persistent/permanent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization, all-cause death, and adverse symptoms. We also aimed to explore the differential effects of algorithms in studies enrolling a high percentage of atrioventricular block (AVB) patients. Eight studies (7229 patients) were included in the analysis. Compared to DDD pacing, patients using RVPm algorithms showed a lower risk of PerAF [odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.97] and CV hospitalization (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.97). No significant difference was found for all-cause death (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.78-1.30) or adverse symptoms (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81-1.29). No significant interaction was found between the use of the RVPm strategy and studies enrolling a high percentage of AVB patients. The pooled mean RVP percentage for RVPm algorithms was 7.96% (95% CI 3.13-20.25), as compared with 45.11% (95% CI 26.64-76.38) of DDD pacing. Conclusion: Algorithms for RVPm may be effective in reducing the risk of PerAF and CV hospitalization in patients requiring anti-bradycardia therapies, without an increased risk of adverse symptoms. These results are also consistent for studies enrolling a high percentage of AVB patients.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
