Antiarrhythmic benefits of dual chamber stimulation with rate-response in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and chronotropic incompetence: a prospective, multicentre study.

Background While the haemodynamic benefits of DDDR pacing compared with DDD pacing in patients with brady– tachy syndrome and chronotropic incompetence (CI) are well demonstrated, the antiarrhythmic advantage is controversial and so far not clearly demonstrated. Aim We have performed a prospective, randomized, multicentre study to evaluate the efficacy of DDDR and DDD pacing modes in preventing paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) episodes in patients with brady–tachy syndrome and CI. Methods and Results Seventy-eight patients were included in the study. All patients had a dual chamber pacemaker implanted and were randomly programmed to DDD or DDDR with a cross over (DDD DDDR or vice versa) at 3 months. The final evaluation was performed at 6 months by means of two self-administered symptom questionnaires to evaluate activity. Symptoms of palpitations were analysed and scored. The patients were less symptomatic with the DDDR mode. The number of modeswitch activations compared with symptomatic episodes of PAF confirmed the high rate of asymptomatic PAF episodes in patients with brady–tachy syndrome. We conclude that in a small but well defined population of patients affected by sick sinus syndrome with CI and severely symptomatic PAF, DDDR pacing compared with DDD pacing may offer an additional antiarrhythmic benefit and should be considered the primary mode of pacing. (Europace 1999; 1: 220–225)