Effects of Continuous and Triggered Atrial Overdrive Pacing on Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation in Pacemaker Patients

Abstract

Triggered atrial pacing functions alone resulted in a low AF burden. The additional activation of continuous atrial overdrive pacing increased the percentage of atrial pacing, but had no beneficial effects on the prevention of paroxysmal AF.

The Influence of Atrial and Ventricular Pacing on the Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta‐Analysis

“…That study showed a limited reduction of AF burden (0.08 hours/day) in the treatment arm 15 . Other preventive atrial pacing strategies such as atrial pacing in response to atrial premature beats, postexercise pacing, and continuous pacing have been developed but unfortunately, these atrial pacing algorithms have not been shown to consistently and substantially reduce the incidence of AF 16–18 …”

Atrial pacing minimization in sinus node dysfunction and risk of incident atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial

“…Different pacemaker-specific algorithms including triggered pacing and continuous overdrive atrial pacing were developed to reduce atrial fibrillation. 9–11 , 13 However, the evidence favouring routine use of these algorithms is not convincing. The ASSERT trial showed no benefit of an atrial overdrive pacing algorithm in reducing atrial fibrillation, but a non-significant trend suggested that increased atrial pacing increases the risk of atrial fibrillation.…”

Antiarrhythmic properties of atrial pacing — Alternative sites or better pharmacotherapy or both?

“…No effect on the incidence of AF for a continuous overdrive stimulation was observed in several previous studies including OASES (Overdrive Atrial Septum Stimulation) and AFT (Atrial Fibrillation Therapy). Only in the case of triggered pacing a benefit was found, compared to the continuous pacing, irrespective of its rate and a lead location [9,10].…”