4.7 Article

Progression to chronic atrial fibrillation after pacing: The Canadian Trial Of Physiologic Pacing

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01326-2

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives This study examined the effect of physiologic pacing on the development of chronic atrial fibrillation (CAF) in the Canadian Trial Of Physiologic Pacing (CTOPP). Background The role of physiologic pacing to prevent CAF remains unclear. Small randomized studies have suggested a benefit for patients with sick sinus syndrome. No data from a large randomized trial are available. Methods The CTOPP randomized patients undergoing first pacemaker implant to ventricular-based or physiologic pacing (AAI or DDD). Patients who were prospectively found to have persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) lasting greater than or equal to one week were defined as having CAF. Kaplan-Meier plots for the development of CAF were compared by log-rank test. The effect of baseline variables on the benefit of physiologic pacing was evaluated by Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results Physiologic pacing reduced the development of CAF by 27.1%, from 3.84% per year to 2.8% per year (p = 0.016). Three clinical factors predicted the development of CAF: age greater than or equal to 74 years (p = 0.057), sinoatrial (SA) node disease (p < 0.001) and prior AF (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a trend for patients with no history of myocardial infarction or coronary disease (p = 0.09) as well as apparently normal left ventricular function (P = 0.11) to derive greatest benefit. Conclusions Physiologic pacing reduces the annual rate of development of chronic AF in patients undergoing first pacemaker implant. Age greater than or equal to 74 years, SA node disease and prior AF predicted the development of CAF. Patients with structurally normal hearts appear to derive greatest benefits. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:167-72) (C) 2001 by the American College of Cardiology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据