Societies' guide focuses on pacemaker device, mode selection

| | Health Exec | Digital Transformation
thumbs up - 247.78 Kb
The Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) have published an expert consensus statement to address pacemaker device and mode selection. The statement is designed to help guide physicians on the use of single versus dual-chamber pacemaker devices for patients who already meet guidelines for pacemaker implantation when a clinical decision for pacing has been made.

The specific recommendations were based on data derived from multiple randomized clinical trials, single randomized trials, non-randomized trials and case studies. The writing group, which consisted of 11 cardiac electrophysiologists and surgeons from the U.S., Canada and Europe, also provided expert opinions that informed the recommendations. The document expands on the 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities.

“This document represents the first recommendations specific to pacing devices and mode selection for the individual patient and provides a framework for clinicians and healthcare administrators to select the best possible therapy to optimize patient outcomes,” said co-lead author Anne M. Gillis, MD, president of HRS, in a release.

The document includes recommendations for conditions for which there is evidence or general agreement that a given pacing mode is beneficial, useful and effective. This includes conditions for which there is conflicting evidence about the usefulness of a specific pacing mode.

The writing group also reviewed outcomes of pacing mode selection for patients with sinus node dysfunction (SND), atrioventricular (AV) conduction block and other less common indications for pacing. Among the recommendations are:
  • Patients with SND may benefit from atrial or dual-chamber pacing compared with ventricular pacing in regards to the risks of atrial fibrillation (AF), stroke, pacemaker syndrome and improved quality of life.
  • In patients with AV block, dual-chamber pacing can reduce the incidence of pacemaker syndrome and improve some indexes of quality of life.
  • Dual chamber pacing or single chamber atrial pacing should not be used in patients in permanent or longstanding persistent AF. 

Specific recommendations for cardiac resynchronization therapy are not addressed in this document because they currently are provided in previously published guidelines.

The complete expert consensus statement is available online and will be published in both the August issue of HeartRhythm and the Aug. 14 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Related Content

To tell or not to tell: Do patients really need to know who—or what—writes their doctor’s notes?
5 ways AI can help make healthcare more affordable for everyone
HIMSS survey report: Beware insider threats to cybersecurity involving AI
Primary care is primed for AI. But is AI aligned with primary care?
Machine learning vs. bodily pain: 5 points of promise and challenge
Generative AI isn’t changing everything for patients and providers—but it’s not leaving much unaffected, either

Around the web

Cardiovascular Business
Boston Scientific enters renal denervation market with acquisition worth up to $540M

Boston Scientific has announced another significant M&A deal, scooping up an Israeli medtech company focused on RDN technology. 

Radiology Business
Shift toward imaging outside the hospital could save billions

Harvard’s David A. Rosman, MD, MBA, explains how moving imaging outside of hospitals could save billions of dollars for U.S. healthcare.

Cardiovascular Business
FDA announces catheter recall for Johnson & Johnson PFA system due to stroke risk

The recall comes after approximately 3% of patients treated with the device during the early stages of its U.S. rollout experienced a stroke or transient ischemic attack following surgery. The expected stroke rate is closer to 1%, the FDA explained.