Upload
george-bradley
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
New Findings in the Management of AF in Pacemaker Patients
Results from the MINERVA Triala Medtronic sponsored trial
February 2014
Steven Zweibel, MD, FACC, FHRS, CCDS
Director of Electrophysiology
Hartford Hospital
Hartford, CT
2013 Late-Breaking Clinical
Trial Abstracts
Circulation. 2013;128:2704-2722
World Wide Web at:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/128/24/2704
Study Aim and DesignAim: to evaluate whether DDDRP + MVP or MVP reduces mortality, morbidity, or progression to permanent AF compared with standard dual chamber pacing.
Multicenter (63 centers), international, randomized, single blind study with 3 arms enrolling 1,166 patients with:
• Class I or class II indications for dual chamber pacing
• Previous atrial tachyarrhythmias
• No history of permanent AF or third degree AV block
Primary Objective
Compare the Control DDDR to DDDRP + MVP arms at 2 years using thecomposite clinical endpoint of:
• All-cause death
• CV hospitalizations
• Permanent AF
Patient Baseline Characteristics
* p < 0.05 DDDRP + MVP vs. the other two groups
Primary Outcome(All-Cause Death, CV Hospitalizations, or Permanent AF)Intention-to-treat survival analysis using time to first event
All-Cause DeathIntention-to-treat survival analysis using time to first event
CV HospitalizationsIntention-to-treat survival analysis using time to first event
Permanent AFIntention-to-treat survival analysis using time to first event
Permanent AFIntention-to-treat survival analysis using time to first event
• Cardioversion for atrial arrhythmias occurred less frequently in the DDDRP + MVP vs. Control DDDR (49% relative reduction, p = 0.001)
• AF-related hospitalizations and ER visits occurred less
frequently in the DDDRP + MVP vs. Control DDDR (52% relative reduction, p < 0.0001)
Incidence of AFIntention-to-treat survival analysis using time to first event
Potential Contribution of Reactive ATPRisk of AF > 7 days and aATP efficacy
Note:since ATP treated only episodes longer than 2 minutes, to compare the different groups in a correct and balanced way, this analysis considered only patients with at least 2 minutes of AF
Not conclusive results …Select Studies on Atrial Therapies
Evolution of Atrial ATPFirst Generation
Treated atrial arrhythmias as if they were ventricular arrhythmias All therapies exhausted within 10 minutes
• AT/AF detected
8 hours
• Rhythm changed
• No ATP available to potentially terminate
100 ms 350 ms
220 ms 320 ms
• All therapies delivered in 10 minutes
• ATP unsuccessful
Atrial Therapy Zone
Evolution of Atrial ATPSecond Generation
Reactive ATP
• AT/AF detected
8 hours
• Rhythm changed
• ATP Therapy available for possible termination
100 ms 350 ms
220 ms 320 ms
• All therapies delivered
• ATP Unsuccessful
150 ms 200 ms 250 ms 300 ms
Atrial Therapy Zone
Example of Legacy ATP
Successful Ramp Following the Rhythm Transition (11 hour episode)
Ramp ATP delivered
Successful termination
Example of Reactive ATP in a MINERVA Patient
Discussion Recap
• The MINERVA study demonstrates the potential ability of atrial pacing interventions and reactive ATP to slow the progression to permanent AF
• Reactive ATP was a key therapy component affecting the reduction in time to permanent AF
• Reactive ATP opportunistically treats episodes of AF when they spontaneously organize or slow down
Potential Practice Implications
• No reduction in mortality at 2 years
• No change in CV hospitalizations at 2 years
• 52% relative reduction in atrial cardioversion, 49% relative reduction in AF hospitalization and ER visits
• AFIB begets AFIB and NSR begets NSR
– Providing an extended opportunity for AF ablation
• Reasonable to consider Reactive ATP in any patient receiving a PM with history of AF or at risk
• Reasonable to consider Reactive ATP in ICD and/or CRT patients; however, they have not been studied
Thank You
Brief Statement
www.medtronic.com
World HeadquartersMedtronic, Inc.710 Medtronic ParkwayMinneapolis, MN 55432-5604USATel: (763) 514-4000Fax: (763) 514-4879
Medtronic USA, Inc.Toll-free: 1 (800) 328-2518(24-hour technical support for physicians and medical professionals)
UC201405311 ENFebruary 2014
Back Up
Intervention algorithms
• Atrial rate stabilization (ARS)
• Atrial pacing preference (APP)
• Post mode switch overdrive pacing (PMOP)
26
Atrial Rate Stabilization (ARS)• Intrinsic premature beats not followed by a long
pause (“short-long”)
• Each atrial interval is measured. The next pacing escape is this interval + a percentage (12.5, 25 or 50%)
• The fastest pace allowed is set by the Minimum Interval (shared by APP)
• Marker Channel paces are marked “PP” if generated by ARS
27
ARS - Atrial Rate Stabilization
28
Atrial Pacing Preference (APP)
• Designed to maintain a high percentage of atrial pacing
• On every non-refractory atrial sense, pacing escape interval is shortened. Amount of decrease is programmable, nominally 50ms
• After consecutive atrial paces (nominally 10), the escape interval is lengthened by 20 ms
• APP cannot go faster than the Minimum Interval.• Marker Channel paces are marked “PP” if
generated by APP
29
APP - Atrial Pacing Preference
30
Post Mode Switch Overdrive
31
paced beats
Atrial tachyarrhythmia
pacing rate(DDDR)
time
Atrial rate
Sinus RhythmOverdrive Rate
(DDIR)pacing rate (not slower than 70)
(DDIR)
Overdrive Period
Confirm sinus (about 15 beats)