Premium
Proarrhythmic effects from competitive atrial pacing and potential programming solutions
Author(s) -
Wass SoJin Y.,
Kanj Mohamed,
Mayuga Kenneth,
Hussein Ayman,
Saliba Walid I.,
Bhargava Mandeep,
Cantillon Daniel,
Tchou Patrick J.,
Wazni Oussama,
Wilkoff Bruce L.,
Chung Mina K.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/pace.13962
Subject(s) - medicine , proarrhythmia , atrial fibrillation , cardiology , atrial flutter , atrium (architecture) , refractory period , anesthesia
Abstract Background Programmed long AV delays and intrinsic long first degree AV block may increase risk for competitive atrial pacing (CAP) in devices without CAP avoidance algorithms. Methods Patients identified with CAP‐induced mode switch episodes were followed clinically from September 2013 to August 2019. Attempts to avoid CAP included shortening of postventricular atrial refractory period (PVARP) or postventricular atrial blanking period (PVAB), or change to AAI or DDI modes. After observing associations with sensor‐driven pacing, rate response was inactivated in a subset. Results Among 23 patients identified with CAP (22 St Jude Medical [Abbott]; one Boston Scientific Corporation devices), atrial fibrillation (AF) was induced in 12 (52%), lasting 10 seconds to 28 hours and 32 minutes. In one patient with an ICD CAP‐induced AF with rapid ventricular rates that triggered a shock, inducing ventricular fibrillation, syncope, and another shock. Changing AV delays and shortening of PVARP failed to resolve CAP. After noting that all had CAP during sensor‐driven pacing, rate response was inactivated in seven, resolving further device‐induced AF in the three of seven that had prior CAP‐induced AF. In two patients with intact AV conduction, AAI(R) pacing resolved further documentation of CAP. Conclusions CAP predominantly occurs during sensor‐driven atrial pacing that competes with intrinsic atrial events falling in PVARP. Inactivation of the activity sensor or change to atrial‐based pacing modes (AAI/R) appears to effectively prevent induction of device‐induced atrial proarrhythmia. Ultimately, a corrective algorithm is needed to avoid CAP‐induced proarrhythmia.