Physiological Ventricular Pacing Versus Managed Ventricular Pacing for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Prevention in Patients With Prolonged Atrioventricular Interval: a Multicenter RCT
Led by Quovadis Associazione · Updated on 2025-05-11
640
Participants Needed
1
Research Sites
N/A
Total Duration
On this page
AI-Summary
Brief Title
Who Can Participate
AI-Screening
Your Study Journey
Trial Site Locations
Research Team
How is the study designed?
Similar Trials
Frequently Asked Questions
Research Publications
AI-Summary
What this Trial Is About
Researchers are evaluating the superiority of physiological ventricular pacing compared to managed ventricular pacing for preventing persistent atrial fibrillation in patients who have a prolonged atrioventricular interval and require pacing due to sinus node disease or certain types of second-degree atrioventricular block. This multicenter, prospective, randomized trial uses CE-marked devices already in clinical practice to compare these pacing methods.
The study involves two groups: one receiving physiological ventricular pacing (PhysioVP), which delivers stimulation to the heart's natural conduction system to correct the PR interval and avoid dyssynchrony, and the other receiving managed ventricular pacing (DDD-VPA), which uses right ventricular leads and algorithms to minimize ventricular pacing. Both groups receive atrial leads placed in the right atrial appendage. Patients are implanted with dual-chamber pacemakers and monitored over time.
Participants will have in-office clinical checks at 1, 12, 24, and 36 months after implantation, with additional home monitoring at 6, 18, and 30 months. Researchers will measure outcomes such as the occurrence of persistent atrial fibrillation and clinical composite outcomes over 36 months. Secondary measures include heart function, remodeling, and safety endpoints. The study continues monitoring for three years to evaluate the pacing methods' impact.
CONDITIONS
Brief Title
Physiological Ventricular Pacing Vs Managed Ventricular Pacing for Persistent AF Prevention in Prolonged AV Interval
Who Can Participate
Age: 18Years +
All Genders
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if you...
Adults aged 18 years or older
Able to give informed consent
Prolonged atrioventricular interval (PR >180 ms)
Indication for pacemaker implantation due to sinus node disease
Indication for pacemaker implantation due to paroxysmal type 1 or 2 second-degree AV block
You will not qualify if you...
Candidates for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation
Severe mitral or aortic valve regurgitation or stenosis
Previous atrial fibrillation ablation involving left pulmonary veins
Cardiac surgery within 3 months before pacemaker implantation
History of long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation
Permanent third-degree atrioventricular block
Participation in another clinical trial within the past 3 months
Pregnancy or intention to become pregnant
Life expectancy less than 3 years
AI-Screening
AI-Powered Screening
Complete this quick 3-step screening to check your eligibility
1
2
3
Your Study Journey
Screening
Duration - 2 to 4 weeks
Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial.
Implementation
Duration - 1 day
Participants undergo implantation of pacing devices with either physiological ventricular pacing leads or managed ventricular pacing leads placed in the heart.
1 implantation visit (in-person)
Post-implantation Monitoring
Duration - 36 months
Participants are monitored through clinical visits and home monitoring to assess the effectiveness and safety of the pacing devices in preventing persistent atrial fibrillation.
In-office visits at 1, 12, 24, and 36 months and home monitoring at 6, 18, and 30 months
Trial Site Locations
Total: 1 location
1
Elettrofisiologia, Cardiologia, Ospedale di Rovigo
The PhysioVP-AF study, a randomized controlled trial to assess the clinical benefit of physiological ventricular pacing vs. managed ventricular pacing for persistent atrial fibrillation prevention in patients with prolonged atrioventricular conduction: design and rationale.