Cargando…

Safety and efficiency of ventricular pacing prevention with an AAI-DDD changeover mode in patients with sinus node disease or atrioventricular block: impact on battery longevity—a sub-study of the ANSWER trial

AIMS: This ANSWER (EvaluAtioN of the SafeR mode in patients With a dual chambER pacemaker indication) sub-study assesses safety and effectiveness of SafeR™ and the impact of ventricular pacing (VP) prevention on anticipated device longevity and replacement rate. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients implant...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stockburger, Martin, Defaye, Pascal, Boveda, Serge, Stancak, Branislav, Lazarus, Arnaud, Sipötz, Johann, Nardi, Stefano, Rolando, Mara, Moreno, Javier
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841592/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26612882
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euv358
_version_ 1783304773436440576
author Stockburger, Martin
Defaye, Pascal
Boveda, Serge
Stancak, Branislav
Lazarus, Arnaud
Sipötz, Johann
Nardi, Stefano
Rolando, Mara
Moreno, Javier
author_facet Stockburger, Martin
Defaye, Pascal
Boveda, Serge
Stancak, Branislav
Lazarus, Arnaud
Sipötz, Johann
Nardi, Stefano
Rolando, Mara
Moreno, Javier
author_sort Stockburger, Martin
collection PubMed
description AIMS: This ANSWER (EvaluAtioN of the SafeR mode in patients With a dual chambER pacemaker indication) sub-study assesses safety and effectiveness of SafeR™ and the impact of ventricular pacing (VP) prevention on anticipated device longevity and replacement rate. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients implanted for atrioventricular block (AVB, n = 310) or sinus node dysfunction (SND, n = 336) were randomly assigned to SafeR (n = 314) or DDD (n = 318) and followed for 36 months. Safety, median VP, estimated device longevity (mean difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]), and anticipated replacement rates were analysed by pacing mode and implant indication. No difference in mortality, syncope, or mode intolerance was observed between randomization groups regardless of the indication. Ventricular pacing on SafeR vs. DDD was 11.5 vs. 93.6% in the overall population (P < 0.001), 89.2 vs. 83.8% in permanent AVB (P = 0.944), 53.5 vs. 98.2% in intermittent AVB (P < 0.001), and 2.2 vs. 84.7% in SND (P < 0.001). Anticipated median device longevity increased on SafeR by 14 [Q1 10; Q3 17] months [10; 17] (P < 0.001) in the overall population, 9 months [−5; 22] (P = 0.193) in permanent AVB, 14 months [8; 19] (P < 0.001) in intermittent AVB, and 14 months [9; 19] (P < 0.001) in SND. In intermittent AVB and SND, prolonged estimated battery longevity translated into the prevention of one anticipated replacement in at least 23% of patients. CONCLUSION: SafeR was effective in reducing VP in intermittent AVB and in SND. No effect was observed in permanent AVB. No safety issue was observed. Ventricular pacing reduction by SafeR translated into relevant estimated prolongation of device longevity and anticipated reduction of required replacements.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5841592
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58415922018-03-28 Safety and efficiency of ventricular pacing prevention with an AAI-DDD changeover mode in patients with sinus node disease or atrioventricular block: impact on battery longevity—a sub-study of the ANSWER trial Stockburger, Martin Defaye, Pascal Boveda, Serge Stancak, Branislav Lazarus, Arnaud Sipötz, Johann Nardi, Stefano Rolando, Mara Moreno, Javier Europace Clinical Research AIMS: This ANSWER (EvaluAtioN of the SafeR mode in patients With a dual chambER pacemaker indication) sub-study assesses safety and effectiveness of SafeR™ and the impact of ventricular pacing (VP) prevention on anticipated device longevity and replacement rate. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients implanted for atrioventricular block (AVB, n = 310) or sinus node dysfunction (SND, n = 336) were randomly assigned to SafeR (n = 314) or DDD (n = 318) and followed for 36 months. Safety, median VP, estimated device longevity (mean difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]), and anticipated replacement rates were analysed by pacing mode and implant indication. No difference in mortality, syncope, or mode intolerance was observed between randomization groups regardless of the indication. Ventricular pacing on SafeR vs. DDD was 11.5 vs. 93.6% in the overall population (P < 0.001), 89.2 vs. 83.8% in permanent AVB (P = 0.944), 53.5 vs. 98.2% in intermittent AVB (P < 0.001), and 2.2 vs. 84.7% in SND (P < 0.001). Anticipated median device longevity increased on SafeR by 14 [Q1 10; Q3 17] months [10; 17] (P < 0.001) in the overall population, 9 months [−5; 22] (P = 0.193) in permanent AVB, 14 months [8; 19] (P < 0.001) in intermittent AVB, and 14 months [9; 19] (P < 0.001) in SND. In intermittent AVB and SND, prolonged estimated battery longevity translated into the prevention of one anticipated replacement in at least 23% of patients. CONCLUSION: SafeR was effective in reducing VP in intermittent AVB and in SND. No effect was observed in permanent AVB. No safety issue was observed. Ventricular pacing reduction by SafeR translated into relevant estimated prolongation of device longevity and anticipated reduction of required replacements. Oxford University Press 2016-05 2015-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5841592/ /pubmed/26612882 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euv358 Text en © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Research
Stockburger, Martin
Defaye, Pascal
Boveda, Serge
Stancak, Branislav
Lazarus, Arnaud
Sipötz, Johann
Nardi, Stefano
Rolando, Mara
Moreno, Javier
Safety and efficiency of ventricular pacing prevention with an AAI-DDD changeover mode in patients with sinus node disease or atrioventricular block: impact on battery longevity—a sub-study of the ANSWER trial
title Safety and efficiency of ventricular pacing prevention with an AAI-DDD changeover mode in patients with sinus node disease or atrioventricular block: impact on battery longevity—a sub-study of the ANSWER trial
title_full Safety and efficiency of ventricular pacing prevention with an AAI-DDD changeover mode in patients with sinus node disease or atrioventricular block: impact on battery longevity—a sub-study of the ANSWER trial
title_fullStr Safety and efficiency of ventricular pacing prevention with an AAI-DDD changeover mode in patients with sinus node disease or atrioventricular block: impact on battery longevity—a sub-study of the ANSWER trial
title_full_unstemmed Safety and efficiency of ventricular pacing prevention with an AAI-DDD changeover mode in patients with sinus node disease or atrioventricular block: impact on battery longevity—a sub-study of the ANSWER trial
title_short Safety and efficiency of ventricular pacing prevention with an AAI-DDD changeover mode in patients with sinus node disease or atrioventricular block: impact on battery longevity—a sub-study of the ANSWER trial
title_sort safety and efficiency of ventricular pacing prevention with an aai-ddd changeover mode in patients with sinus node disease or atrioventricular block: impact on battery longevity—a sub-study of the answer trial
topic Clinical Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841592/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26612882
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euv358
work_keys_str_mv AT stockburgermartin safetyandefficiencyofventricularpacingpreventionwithanaaidddchangeovermodeinpatientswithsinusnodediseaseoratrioventricularblockimpactonbatterylongevityasubstudyoftheanswertrial
AT defayepascal safetyandefficiencyofventricularpacingpreventionwithanaaidddchangeovermodeinpatientswithsinusnodediseaseoratrioventricularblockimpactonbatterylongevityasubstudyoftheanswertrial
AT bovedaserge safetyandefficiencyofventricularpacingpreventionwithanaaidddchangeovermodeinpatientswithsinusnodediseaseoratrioventricularblockimpactonbatterylongevityasubstudyoftheanswertrial
AT stancakbranislav safetyandefficiencyofventricularpacingpreventionwithanaaidddchangeovermodeinpatientswithsinusnodediseaseoratrioventricularblockimpactonbatterylongevityasubstudyoftheanswertrial
AT lazarusarnaud safetyandefficiencyofventricularpacingpreventionwithanaaidddchangeovermodeinpatientswithsinusnodediseaseoratrioventricularblockimpactonbatterylongevityasubstudyoftheanswertrial
AT sipotzjohann safetyandefficiencyofventricularpacingpreventionwithanaaidddchangeovermodeinpatientswithsinusnodediseaseoratrioventricularblockimpactonbatterylongevityasubstudyoftheanswertrial
AT nardistefano safetyandefficiencyofventricularpacingpreventionwithanaaidddchangeovermodeinpatientswithsinusnodediseaseoratrioventricularblockimpactonbatterylongevityasubstudyoftheanswertrial
AT rolandomara safetyandefficiencyofventricularpacingpreventionwithanaaidddchangeovermodeinpatientswithsinusnodediseaseoratrioventricularblockimpactonbatterylongevityasubstudyoftheanswertrial
AT morenojavier safetyandefficiencyofventricularpacingpreventionwithanaaidddchangeovermodeinpatientswithsinusnodediseaseoratrioventricularblockimpactonbatterylongevityasubstudyoftheanswertrial