ABSTRACT
AIMS: It is uncertain whether patient perception of atrial fibrillation (AF) is based on the fast ventricular rate as such or the irregularity of the ventricular responses. This trial was designed to confirm the effectiveness of a ventricular rate stabilisation (VRS) algorithm in reducing ventricular irregularity during permanent pacing in patients with AF and to assess the patient preference and effect on quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In this multicentre single-blind randomised crossover trial, 184 patients with drug-refractory permanent (n=91) or paroxysmal (n=93) AF received a VVI(R) or DDD(R) pacemaker respectively and were paced in a randomised sequence with VRS on or off for two months. Clinical assessments (QoL, New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, echocardiography, six-minute walk test and Holter recording) were carried out at baseline, at randomisation and after each crossover period. QoL assessment was performed using Aquarel, a new disease-specific QoL questionnaire for pacemaker patients, the Short Form 36 survey (SF-36), the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) and the Symptom Checklist frequency and severity scores. At the end of the study patients preferences for VRS-on or VRS-off were recorded. RESULTS: VRS pacing reduced ventricular irregularity without increasing the mean ventricular rate. VRS-on was preferred by 65.8% of patients with paroxysmal AF; patients with permanent AF had no preference. QoL did not show improvement during VRS pacing on any of the instruments. CONCLUSION: VRS pacing is effective in reducing ventricular rhythm irregularity. QoL does not improve during VRS pacing but preference for VRS pacing appears particularly outspoken for patients with paroxysmal AF.
ABSTRACT
AIM: Mitral valve surgery seldom suppresses atrial fibrillation (AF), present prior to surgery. Maze III surgery eliminates AF in >80% of cases, the reason why combining this procedure with mitral valve surgery in patients with AF seems worthwhile. We prospectively studied the outcome of combining the Maze III procedure with mitral valve surgery. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with AF and a mean age of 64 years undergoing mitral valve surgery were prospectively randomized according to a 2.5:1 ratio to surgery with (n=25), or without (n=10) maze III and followed for at least 1 year. RESULTS: At discharge and after 12 months freedom from AF was 56% and 92%, respectively, in the maze group, and 0% and 20%, respectively, in patients without maze (group differences at discharge p=0.002, after 12 months p=0.0007). Sinus node incompetence was seen in 1 of 25 maze patients requiring pacing. No in-hospital or late death occurred; stroke was observed in 1 patient (without maze). Quality of life markedly improved after surgery, but did not differ between patients with or without maze surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This first prospective randomized study shows that combining maze III with mitral valve surgery resulted in a significantly better elimination of preoperative AF than mitral valve surgery alone. As the quality of life did not differ between patients with, or without maze surgery, additional maze surgery is primarily recommended in patients in whom anticoagulation therapy can be avoided after surgery, specifically in patients with scheduled mitral valve plasty.
