AimsThe ŒDIPE trial examined the safety and efficacy of an abbreviated hospitalization after implantation or replacement of dual-chamber pacemakers (PM) using a telecardiology-based ambulatory surveillance programme.Methods and resultsPatients were randomly assigned to (i) an active group, discharged from the hospital 24 h after a first PM implant or 4–6 h after replacement, and followed for 4 weeks with Home-Monitoring (HM), or (ii) a control group followed for 4 weeks according to usual medical practices. The primary objective was to confirm that the proportion of patients who experienced one or more major adverse events (MAE) was not higher in the active than in the control group. The study included 379 patients. At least one treatment-related MAE was observed in 9.2% of patients (n = 17) assigned to the active group vs. 13.3% of patients (n = 26) in the control group (P = 0.21), a 4.1% absolute risk reduction (95% CI −2.2 to 10.4; P = 0.98). By study design, the mean hospitalization duration was 34% shorter in the active than in the control group (P < 0.001), and HM facilitated the early detection of technical issues and detectable clinical anomalies.ConclusionEarly discharge with HM after PM implantation or replacement was safe and facilitated the monitoring of patients in the month following the procedure.

No abstract

Six patients (5 men, 1 woman) with a history ranging from 3-16 years of resistant vagal atrial arrhythmias were treated by atrial pacing at a rate of 90/Min. These patients have been followed up for an average of 5.5 years (range 2-11 years) with favorable results. The arrhythmias were characterized by daily or weekly attacks of typical atrial flutter and atrial fibrillation occurring mainly or exclusively at night, at rest, or in the digestive periods in otherwise normal hearts of middle-aged patients (first attack between 25 and 54, mean 40). The arrhythmias were resistant to quinidine, and were usually aggravated by digitalis, beta-blockers and verapamil. Amiodarone is usually the only effective drug in this syndrome, but was not used before pacing in the 2 first cases, and was ineffective in the other 4 cases. Electrophysiologic studies confirmed the absence of sick sinus syndrome, and the close relationship between relative bradycardia and the onset of the arrhythmia. Atrial pacing alone totally controlled the arrhythmia in 1 patient; amiodarone was used in conjunction with pacing in 3 patients. In 1 patient the improvement was clear but incomplete, and in 1 patient permanent atrial fibrillation occurred shortly after pacemaker implantation.

Long-term prevention of atrial fibrillation is not constantly realized by single-site right atrial pacing, and the beneficial role of multisite atrial pacing is still being studied. Accordingly, we compared the effectiveness of dual site and single site atrial pacing in 83 patients (50 men, 33 women, aged 69 +/- 10 years), who received a DDD device for primary sinus node dysfunction or bradycardia with documented atrial fibrillation. Inclusion criteria for dual site pacing were a sinus P wave > or = 120 ms and at least two episodes of documented paroxysmal AF in the 6 months preceding implantation. Dual site atrial pacing (high right atrium-coronary sinus ostium) was performed in 30 cases, and was compared to 53 single site paced patients, 21 with a P wave > or = 120 ms and 32 with a P wave < 120 ms. The basic pacing rate was programmed at 68 +/- 4 beats/min (range 60-75 beats/min). Sinus P wave (133 +/- 20 vs 95 +/- 9 ms; P < 0.001), paced P wave (107 +/- 14 vs 99 +/- 15; P < 0.05), number of antiarrhythmic drugs used (2.4 +/- 1.2 vs 1.6 +/- 1.5, P < 0.05), and the duration of symptoms (8.1 +/- 4.5 vs 3.8 +/- 2.4 years; P < 0.001) were significantly higher in dual site patients. The other characteristics were similar. During the follow-up of 18 +/- 15 months (range 3-30 months), paroxysmal AF was documented in 33 patients. Among these patients, 13 developed permanent AF following at least one episode of paroxysmal AF. When comparing dual site patients and single site patients with a P wave duration > or = 120 ms, paroxysmal AF incidence was lower in the dual site group (9/30 patients vs 15/21 patients, P < 0.01), as well as permanent AF (1/30 patients vs 8/21 patients, P < 0.01). By contrast, comparison between dual site patients and the group of single site patients with a P wave duration < 120 ms did not evidence any significant differences in paroxysmal (9/30 patients vs 9/32 patients) and permanent (1/30 patients vs 4/32 patients) AF incidences. Dual site seems better able than single site atrial pacing to improve the natural history of patients with a prolonged P wave, reducing the incidence of paroxysmal and permanent AF. No benefit could be expected in patients with a normal P wave duration.