Table 1.

Key aspects of RVpm vs. maintenance of AV sequential stimulation in major clinical studies. Adapted from Biffi M. et al., Expert Rev Med Devices 2021; 18:161–177

Study, year	Number of patients	Comparison	Mortality	HF events	AF	Main findings
MOST, 1998 28	n = 2 010 (SND population)	DDD vs. VVI	=	↓	↓	Cum %VP associated to RVPIC
DAVID, 2002 29	n = 506 (ICD recipients)	DDDR-70 vs. VVI-40	↑	↑		‘Unnecessary’ atrial and RV pacing are detrimental
SAVE-PACE, 2007 30	n = 1 065 (SND population)	DDD + RVpm vs. DDD	=	=	↓	RVpm algorithm ↓ AF onset
DANPACE, 2011 31	n = 1 415 (SND population)	DDD/R vs. AAI/R	=	=	↓	AF is related to prolonged AV interval rather than to Cum %VP
ANSWER, 2015 32	n = 632 (mixed population of PM recipients)	DDDR + RVpm vs. DDDR pacing	↓	↓	=	Secondary endpoints; primary endpoint similar
MINERVA, 2019 24	n = 1 166 (SND population)	DDDR vs. DDDR + RVpm Baseline PR ≤ 180 ms vs. ≥180 ms			↑↓	AF is related to prolonged AV interval rather than to Cum %VP.
CARE HF, 2009 33	n = 813 (CRT recipients)	CRT vs. OPT	↓	↓		Long PR is detrimental in HF patients
REAL CRT, 2020 34	n = 82 (mixed population with EF ≥ 35% and PR ≥ 220 ms)	CRT vs. DDD + RVpm			↓	AF is related to prolonged AV interval rather than to Cum %VP.

AF, atrial fibrillation; AVB, atrioventricular block; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; Cum %VP, cumulative percentage ventricular pacing; DDD-70, dual-chamber rate response pacing at 70 bpm; HBP, His bundle pacing; HF, heart failure; OPT, optimal pharmacologic therapy; PM, pacemaker; RVpm, right ventricular pacing minimization; RVPIC, RV pacing-induced cardiomyopathy; SND, sinus node disease; VVI-40, ventricular back-up pacing at 40 bpm.

The name of the studies are indicated as bold.