Is Automatic Mode Switching Effective for Atrial Arrhythmias Occurring at Different Rates? A Study of the Efficacy of Automatic Mode and Rate Switching to Simulated Atrial Arrhythmias by Chest Wall Stimulation

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Automatic mode switching (AMS) is a useful means to avoid rapid ventricular response during atrial fibrillation (AF), but AMS cannot occur if the detected atrial rate during AF is below the mode switching criteria. This may be the result of antiarrhythmic medications, or when the atrial events fall within the atrial blanking period, or if the atrial amplitudes during AF are too small to be sensed. We hypothesize that the addition of an automatic rate switching (ARS) algorithm may complement AMS response during AF with different detected atrial rates. We studied the Marathon DDDR pacemaker (Model 294–09, Intermedics Inc.) with the AMS and ARS algorithms that are independently programmable but can also operate in combination. AF sensed above the AMS rate (160 beats/mm) will lead to VDIR pacing, whereas AF below AMS rate will be tracked at an interim rate as dictate by the ARS, at a ventricular response that is 20 beats/min above the sensor indicated rate. Atrial tachyarrhythmias were simulated by chest wall stimulation (CWS). CWS was applied to 33 patients (16 men, 17 women, mean age 69 ± 11 years) with a Marathon DDDR pacemaker using an external pacer to simulate AF occurring at two rate levels: above the AMS rate (programmed at 160 beats/min) at 180 beats/min and below the AMS rate at 120 beats/min. The maximum, minimum, and mean ventricular rates during CWS in DDDR mode with AMS alone, ARS alone, and their combination were compared. During CWS at 120 beats/min, the AMS plus ARS setting showed a mean ventricular rate of 79 ± 3 beats/min and 124 ± 14 beats/mm in the AMS setting alone (P < 0.01). With CWS at 180 beats/min, the mean ventricular rate in the AMS plus ARS setting compared to the AMS setting alone was not significantly different. However, the variation in ventricular pacing rate was 7 ± 14 beats/min in the AMS plus ARS setting and 40 ± 42 beats/min in the AMS setting (P < 0.05). In conclusion, AMS is effective for simulated atrial tachyarrhythmias sensed above the AMS rate. Combined AMS with ARS is useful to handle simulated atrial tachyarrhythmia at a slower rate and to avoid rate fluctuation during AMS. There is also a possibility that this can be applied to the naturally occurring atrial tachyarrhythmias.