Abstract
Aims
Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at a high risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Little is known about the specific population of AF patients with implanted pacemaker (PM) and their prognosis. Therefore, we aimed to compare the risks of adverse outcomes in AF patients with and without PM.
Methods and results
Data from two Swiss prospective, multicentre cohort studies (Swiss-AF, Beat-AF) (n = 3675) with yearly follow-ups (FUs) up to 8 years were analysed. The first main outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and systemic embolism. The second main outcome was hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Secondary outcomes were the individual components of MACE. We performed time-updated Cox regression analyses to investigate the association of PM and outcomes. Median age was 71.4 years, 28.8% female, 445 (12.1%) patients had a PM at baseline, and 238 additional patients (7.4%, 1.05%/year) received a PM over a median FU of 7 years. Patients with a PM had higher incidence rates for MACE and HF (5.97 and 5.08 per 100 patient-years, respectively), compared to patients without a PM (3.37 and 2.61 per 100 patient-years, respectively). After multivariable adjustment, we found no independent association of PM and MACE (aHR [95% CI] 1.12 [0.95–1.33; P = 0.183]) or HF (aHR [95% CI] 1.14 [0.94–1.37; P = 0.180]). We found consistent results for the individual components of MACE.
Conclusion
Patients with AF and a PM experienced an increased rate of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. However, the PM itself was not independently associated with these outcomes.
Keywords: Atrial fibrillation, Pacemaker, MACE, Adverse outcomes
Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract.
What’s new?
This is the first study examining the associations of pacemakers (PMs) to adverse outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF)
We show that patients with AF and a PM had substantially higher event rates for major adverse cardiovascular events and hospitalization for heart failure (HF) compared to AF patients without PM
After adjustment, the presence of PM itself was not independently associated with adverse outcomes
The data suggests that AF patients with a PM represent a high-risk group within the AF population and may therefore benefit from more intensive follow-up and target treatment strategies to improve their clinical outcomes
Introduction
Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at an increased risk of sinus node dysfunction1–3 and are more likely to experience atrioventricular (AV) block.4 Consequently, the rate of pacemaker (PM) implantation is higher in patients with AF compared to those without AF.5–7 Moreover, beyond intrinsic mechanisms, some AF patients may undergo PM implantation before AV node ablation as part of a pace-and-ablate strategy for rate control.8,9
As AF is the most common sustained arrhythmia, with its prevalence expected to rise in the coming decades, clinicians will increasingly encounter a substantial patient population with both AF and a PM.10–12 While several studies have investigated the prognostic implications of incident AF in patients with PMs, to the best of our knowledge, no prior study has examined the associations between the presence of a PM and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with prevalent AF.13–16
The presence of a PM in AF patients may identify patients at differing risks for adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared to AF patients without a PM. This distinction may arise from underlying cardiac conditions affecting the conduction system, such as atrial cardiomyopathy with fibrosis of the conduction system, which consequently can lead to a PM implantation17 and may be associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes. Conversely, a PM might attenuate the risk of heart failure (HF) by ensuring a regular heart rhythm after AV node ablation18 or by maintaining an adequate minimum heart rate in patients with bradyarrhythmias but may also potentially worsen HF by inducing ventricular desynchrony.7,19,20 Given that AF patients already face an increased risk for various cardiovascular outcomes compared to the general population, any increase or attenuation of this risk may be clinically relevant.21–23
This study aimed at investigating the associations between the presence of a PM and the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and HF hospitalizations in a large, unselected cohort of patients with AF.
Methods
Study design and patient population
For this analysis, data from the Basel Atrial Fibrillation (Beat-AF) and the Swiss Atrial Fibrillation (Swiss-AF; NCT02105844) cohort studies were combined. Both cohorts are ongoing large prospective, observational, multicentre studies in Switzerland. The detailed methodologies have been published previously and were similar between the two studies.24,25 In Beat-AF, 1553 AF patients were enrolled between 2010 and 2014 across seven centres, while Swiss-AF enrolled 2415 AF patients from 2014 to 2017 across 14 centres. The main inclusion criterion for both cohorts was established AF. In Swiss-AF, an age ≥65 years was mandatory (except for a limited number of patients aged 45–65 years to study health economic aspects), whereas no age criterion was used in Beat-AF. Main exclusion criteria were the inability to sign informed consent, short reversible forms of AF (due to secondary causes such as infection or surgery), or any acute illness in the last 4 weeks. Patients with acute illness were eligible for enrolment after stabilization or resolution of the underlying condition. Patients enrolled in Beat-AF were not eligible to participate in Swiss-AF. The study was approved by local ethics committees in the participating centres (lead ethics committee: Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz) and complied with the Helsinki declaration. Informed written consent was obtained from each participant. The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
From a total of 3968 patients, we excluded 293 patients: 1 for missing information on cardiac device status, 67 due to missing follow-up (FU) information, and 218 due to having another cardiac device than a PM [e.g. cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), CRT with defibrillator (CRT-ICD), or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)]. Patients with other cardiac devices than PM were excluded due to assumed differences in the underlying cardiac disease. Patients receiving another device than PM during the observational period were censored from the analysis at time of receiving the different device (n = 14) to avoid potential bias.26 Patients with implanted loop recorders (n = 24) were included in the group without PM. This resulted in 3675 patients included in this analysis. Patients receiving a PM implantation during the observation period crossed over into the PM group at this moment in time. Any crossovers were accounted for by the time-updated analysis. The study population enrolment flowchart is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Study enrolment flow.
Data collection
In both cohorts, information on individual patient characteristics, medical history including comorbidities, cardiovascular risk factors, lifestyle factors, current medication, and cardiac device implantations were collected using standardized case report forms. The CHA2DS2-VASc score was calculated [congestive HF (1 point), hypertension (1 point), age ≥ 75 years (2 points), diabetes (1 point), prior stroke/transient ischaemic attack/thromboembolism (2 points), vascular disease (1 point), age 65–74 years (1 point), and female sex (1 point)]. Smoking status was categorized as active vs non-active smokers. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared. Blood pressure was measured three times in a supine position and the mean of all values was used. Atrial fibrillation type was categorized as paroxysmal, persistent, and permanent according to the AF guidelines at the time of study inception. In this analysis, paroxysmal and persistent AF were grouped together as non-permanent.27 The collected data were updated during yearly FU visits either in person or by phone.
Assessment of pacemaker status
Information on device implantation was obtained at enrolment and in yearly FU visits. Details recorded were the type of the cardiac device, the date of implantation, and any complications related to device implantation. Cardiac device status was updated yearly up to 8 years after enrolment in Beat-AF and up to 7 years after enrolment in Swiss-AF.
Outcome events
The two main outcome events were MACE and hospitalization for HF. Major adverse cardiovascular events included any stroke and/or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), systemic embolism (SE), myocardial infarction (MI), and cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, non-cardiovascular death, stroke, and/or TIA and MI. Outcomes were collected similarly in both cohorts. Detailed definitions of the main and secondary outcomes are provided in the supplement. All outcome events were independently validated by two trained physicians. In case of discrepancies, a third physician was consulted.
Statistical analysis
Baseline characteristics were stratified by the presence or absence of a PM at baseline. Categorical variables were presented as numbers and percentages and compared using χ² test. Continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range) and compared using a t test or the Mann–Whitney U test if strongly skewed. Patient-years (py) of FU were calculated as the difference between baseline and study termination (death, drop-out, or loss to FU), the respective outcome event or last visit date. Incidence rates were calculated as the number of events per 100 py of FU.
To investigate the associations of having a PM with adverse outcome events, we constructed time-updated Cox proportional hazards regression models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and to adjust for potential confounders. A PM (yes/no) was used as the predictor of interest, and the variable status was updated whenever a participant received a PM device or if the participant changed from PM to another device. Model 1 was adjusted for age and sex. Model 2 was additionally adjusted for hypertension, diabetes, type of AF (permanent vs non-permanent), history of HF, history of stroke or TIA, history of MI, history of renal failure, BMI, smoking status (active vs non-smoking), oral anticoagulation, and antithrombotic treatment. In subgroup analyses, we repeated the analyses for the main outcomes stratified by AF type.
All analyses were performed using RStudio version 4.2.2.
Patient and public involvement
Patients were asked at baseline if they wished to receive results of the studies and analyses conducted with the Beat-AF and Swiss-AF cohort. Brief result information will be sent by mail and e-mail or handed out during FU visits.
We used the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) cohort checklist when writing our report.28
Results
Baseline characteristics, stratified by presence or absence of a PM at enrolment, are presented in Table 1. Overall, the mean age was 71.4 (±10) years and 1060 (28.8%) were female. Compared to patients without PM, patients with PM were older (77 vs 71 years), were more often female (32.8% vs 28.3%), and had more often diabetes (18.7% vs 14.9%), prior stroke or TIA (20.9% vs 16.8%), a history of HF (31.9% vs 19.5%), coronary artery disease (35.7% vs 23.5%), and chronic kidney disease (28.6% vs 15.7%). Patients with a history of PM implantation were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant (OAC) (88.8% vs 82.9%) and had a higher proportion of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for anticoagulation (56.9% vs 46.4%). There was no difference in the prevalence of antiplatelet therapy.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics stratified by pacemaker status at study enrolment
| Variable | Overall | No PM | PM | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | 3675 | 3230 (87.9) | 445 (12.1) | – |
| Female sex (%) | 1060 (28.8) | 914 (28.3) | 146 (32.8) | 0.06 |
| Age [mean (SD)] | 71.4 (10.1) | 70.6 (10.1) | 77.1 (7.7) | <0.001 |
| BMI [mean (SD)] | 27.4 (4.7) | 27.5 (4.8) | 27.2 (4.3) | 0.26 |
| AF type (%) | – | – | – | <0.001 |
| Permanent | 815 (22.2) | 667 (20.7) | 148 (33.3) | – |
| Non-permanent | 2858 (77.8) | 2561 (79.3) | 297 (66.7) | – |
| CHA2DS2-VASc Score [mean (SD)] | 3.2 (1.8) | 3.1 (1.8) | 4.0 (1.5) | <0.001 |
| Active smoking (%) | 288 (7.8) | 264 (8.2) | 24 (5.4) | 0.05 |
| Hypertension (%) | 2532 (68.9) | 2196 (68.0) | 336 (75.5) | 0.002 |
| Diabetes (%) | 565 (15.4) | 482 (14.9) | 83 (18.7) | 0.05 |
| History of heart failure (%) | 776 (21.1) | 634 (19.6) | 142 (31.9) | <0.001 |
| History of stroke or TIA (%) | 637 (17.3) | 544 (16.8) | 93 (20.9) | 0.04 |
| History of peripheral artery disease (%) | 265 (7.2) | 228 (7.1) | 37 (8.3) | 0.39 |
| History of coronary heart disease (%) | 919 (25.0) | 760 (23.5) | 159 (35.7) | <0.001 |
| History of myocardial infarction (%) | 482 (13.1) | 394 (12.2) | 88 (19.8) | <0.001 |
| History of renal failure (%) | 633 (17.2) | 506 (15.7) | 127 (28.6) | <0.001 |
| Medication | ||||
| OAC (%) | 3072 (83.6) | 2677 (82.9) | 395 (88.8) | 0.002 |
| VKA (%) | 1750 (47.6) | 1497 (46.4) | 253 (56.9) | <0.001 |
| DOAC (%) | 1320 (35.9) | 1178 (36.5) | 142 (31.9) | 0.07 |
| Antiplatelet therapy (%) | 773 (21.1) | 670 (20.8) | 103 (23.3) | 0.27 |
Values are mean SD, standard deviation; AF, atrial fibrillation; BMI, body mass index; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulants; OAC, oral anticoagulant; PM, pacemaker; TIA, transient ischaemic attack; VKA, vitamin K antagonist.
Main outcomes
Over a median FU time of 7.0 years (IQR, 6.0–7.9), an additional 238 patients (7.4%, 1.05%/year) received a PM and therefore crossed over into the PM group at the time of implantation. Overall, there were 795 (3.75 per 100 py) MACE outcomes, 184 in patients with PM and 611 in patients without PM, translating into incidence rates of 5.97 and 3.37 per 100 py, respectively. Cumulative incidence curves for MACE, stratified by PM status, are presented in Figure 2. In the time-updated Cox regression model, the multivariable-adjusted HR (95% CI) of the presence of a PM for MACE was 1.12 (0.95–1.33; P = 0.183) (Figure 3).
Figure 2.
Cumulative incidence of MACE (left) and cumulative incidence of heart failure hospitalizations (right). MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events: composite of stroke and/or transient ischaemic attack, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality; PM, pacemaker.
Figure 3.
Association between pacemaker status and adverse outcome events. No., number; IR, incidence rate; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events: composite of stroke and/or transient ischaemic attack, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality; HR (95% CI), hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for MACE and heart failure in patients with pacemaker; PM, pacemaker; Model 1: adjusted for age and sex. Model 2: additionally adjusted for hypertension, diabetes, type of atrial fibrillation, history of heart failure, history of stroke or TIA, history of myocardial infarction, history of renal failure, BMI, active smoking, anticoagulation, and antithrombotic treatment.
The second main outcome of HF hospitalizations occurred in 620 patients (2.96 per 100 py) overall: 150 in patients with PM and 470 in patients without PM, translating into incidence rates of 5.08 and 2.61 per 100 py, respectively (Figure 2). After multivariable adjustment, the HR (95% CI) for HF hospitalizations was 1.14 (0.94–1.37; P = 0.180) (Figure 3).
In subgroup analyses, there was no modifying effect of AF type for the associations of PM with MACE (P = 0.47) or HF (P = 0.95) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Subgroup analysis of the modifying effect of atrial fibrillation type on the associations with pacemaker
| Outcome | No. of events | Incidence rate per 100 person-years | AF type | PM | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | |||||
| MACE | 318 | 6.24 | Permanent | 1.21 (0.94–1.56) | 0.47 |
| 477 | 2.96 | Non-permanent | 1.04 (0.83–1.31) | ||
| Heart failure | 244 | 4.97 | Permanent | 0.90 (0.65–1.23) | 0.95 |
| 376 | 2.35 | Non-permanent | 1.30 (1.03–1.65) |
AF, atrial fibrillation; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events: composite of stroke and/or transient ischaemic attack, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality; HR (95% CI), hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for MACE and heart failure in patients with pacemaker; PM, pacemaker.
Secondary outcomes
Incidence rates and regression models for the secondary outcomes are shown in Figure 3. All secondary outcomes occurred more often in patients with a PM compared to patients without a PM: 1.11 vs 0.63 per 100 py for MI, 1.56 vs 1.33 per 100 py for stroke or TIA, 6.07 vs 3.07 per 100 py for all-cause mortality, 4.00 vs 1.85 per 100 py for cardiovascular death, and 2.03 vs 1.22 per 100 py for non-cardiovascular death. After multivariable adjustment, we did not find conclusive evidence of increased rate of secondary outcomes in patients with PM compared to patients with no PM.
Discussion
In this large cohort of unselected patients with AF, patients with a PM experienced nearly double the rates of MACE and HF hospitalizations compared to those without a PM. Over a 7-year FU, 27% of AF patients with a PM experienced MACE, and 22% were hospitalized for HF. This substantially increased risk was consistent across most of the secondary outcomes. However, after comprehensive adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, the presence of a PM itself was not independently associated with these adverse outcome events, although a slight increase in risk cannot be excluded. These results suggest that AF patients with a PM are high-risk individuals, with the increased risk primarily driven by associated comorbidities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess these associations in such a population.
In our cohort, approximately one out of eight patients with AF had a PM, with an annual implantation rate of 1%. In comparison, the Stockholm Cohort Study of Atrial Fibrillation with 2824 participants and a mean age of 74 (±12) years reported a 10% PM prevalence, similar to this study.29 Likewise, the RECORDAF-study (n = 5604; mean age of 66 ± 11.9 years) found an annual PM implantation rate of 2%.30 Considering that the prevalence of AF in Europe is projected to reach 16–18 million people by 2060, clinicians will increasingly face a substantial patient population with AF and implanted PM.10–12
Compared to AF patients without a PM, the incidence rates suggest that those with a PM had 1.8 times higher rates of MACE and nearly double the rates of HF hospitalization. Over 7 years of FU, about one out of four AF patient with a PM experienced a MACE and one out of five was hospitalized for HF. Thus, AF patients with a PM present a high-risk group in the AF population. Patients with a PM were older and had more comorbidities, including HF, prior stroke, and renal impairment. After adjusting for these covariables, the presence of a PM itself was not associated with these adverse outcomes, although a slight risk increase cannot be ruled out. As HF is the most common cause of death in patients with AF, accounting for 30%, and stroke accounting for 8% of total death,31 it is conceivable that these comorbidities drive adverse outcomes in PM patients. Besides comorbidities, frailty may also be a major determinant of adverse outcomes in PM patients. Frailty is highly prevalent in elderly AF patients, associated with conduction system disorders and an independent risk factor for death.32–34 The presence of a PM may therefore indicate a higher risk for adverse outcomes in patients with a high comorbidity burden and frailty. These patients may benefit from intensified FU and management, for example, in specialized AF clinic, following the ABC-integrated AF management pathway.32,35,36
Our current findings are limited to patients with traditional right ventricular pacing and might not apply to leadless pacing or conduction system pacing.19,37 Specifically, conduction system pacing preserves or restores physiological ventricular activation and might attenuate adverse outcomes compared to right ventricular pacing. In the large MELOS RELOADED study, left bundle branch area pacing was associated with improved survival compared to right ventricular pacing over a 4-year FU in more than 3000 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of >40% and >20% pacing burden.38 In the recent CSPACE randomized controlled trial, conduction system pacing was similarly superior with regard to a composite outcome of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy, CRT upgrade, HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality compared to right ventricular septal pacing in 202 patients with AV block.39 These results suggest that conduction system pacing might also be beneficial in unselected AF patients with a relevant ventricular pacing burden.
Study strength and limitations
The strengths of this study include the large and well-characterized cohort of patients with AF, minimal missing data, a long FU period, and centralized adjudication of outcome events. Several potential limitations must be considered when interpreting the results. There is risk of residual confounding or bias. While information on the type of cardiac device, implantation date, and complications was available, data on pacemaker settings, percentage of ventricular or atrial pacing, or AV node ablation was lacking, which might have influenced the association of PM with adverse outcomes.
Conclusions
Patients with AF and a PM had substantially higher event rates for MACE and hospitalization for HF compared to AF patients without a PM. The presence of a PM itself was not independently associated with adverse outcomes. Our data suggest that AF patients with a PM represent a high-risk group within the AF population and may therefore benefit from more intensive FU and target treatment strategies to improve their clinical outcomes.
Contributor Information
Vincent Meier, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 2, Basel 4056, Switzerland.
Stefanie Aeschbacher, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 2, Basel 4056, Switzerland.
Michael Coslovsky, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland; Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Andreas Gasser, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 2, Basel 4056, Switzerland.
Rebecca E Paladini, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 2, Basel 4056, Switzerland.
Tobias Reichlin, Department of Cardiology Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Nicolas Rodondi, Department of General Internal Medicine Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Andreas Müller, Department of Cardiology, Triemli Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Jürg Beer, Department of Medicine, Cantonal Hospital of Baden and Molecular Cardiology, University Hospital of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Giulio Conte, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale Lugano (EOC), Lugano, Switzerland.
Giorgio Moschovitis, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale Lugano (EOC), Lugano, Switzerland.
Julia Bardoczi, Department of General Internal Medicine Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Alain Bernheim, Department of Cardiology, Triemli Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Elia Rigamonti, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale Lugano (EOC), Lugano, Switzerland.
Laura Möri, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 2, Basel 4056, Switzerland.
Christine S Zuern, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 2, Basel 4056, Switzerland.
Felix Mahfoud, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 2, Basel 4056, Switzerland.
Christian Sticherling, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 2, Basel 4056, Switzerland.
David Conen, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Stefan Osswald, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 2, Basel 4056, Switzerland.
Michael Kühne, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 2, Basel 4056, Switzerland.
Philipp Krisai, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 2, Basel 4056, Switzerland.
Funding
BEAT-AF has been supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (PP00P3_159322), the Swiss Heart Foundation, the University of Basel, Roche Diagnostics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck Sharp and Dome, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Foundation for Cardiovascular Research. The Swiss-AF cohort study is supported by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant numbers 33CS30_148474, 33CS30_177520, 32473B_176178, and 32003B_197524), the University of Basel, and the Foundation for Cardiovascular Research.
Data availability
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
References
- 1. John RM, Kumar S. Sinus node and atrial arrhythmias. Circulation 2016;133:1892–900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Yan Z, Pu X, Chang X, Liu Z, Liu R. Genetic basis and causal relationship between atrial fibrillation and sinus node dysfunction: evidence from comprehensive genetic analysis. Int J Cardiol 2024;418:132609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Jackson LR II, Kim SH, Piccini JPS, Gersh BJ, Naccarelli GV, Reiffel JA et al. Sinus node dysfunction is associated with higher symptom burden and increased comorbid illness: results from the ORBIT-AF registry. Clin Cardiol 2016;39:119–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Cheng S, Keyes MJ, Larson MG, McCabe EL, Newton-Cheh C, Levy D et al. Long-term outcomes in individuals with prolonged PR interval or first-degree atrioventricular block. JAMA 2009;301:2571–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Noubiap JJ, Dewland TA, Olgin JE, Tang JJ, Lee C, Marcus GM. Atrial flutter and sick Sinus syndrome. Heart Rhythm 2024;22:1885–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Lamas GA, Lee KL, Sweeney MO, Silverman R, Leon A, Yee R et al. Ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing for sinus-node dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1854–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB, Michowitz Y, Auricchio A, Barbash IM et al. 2021 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: developed by the task force on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) with the special contribution of the European hear. Eur Heart J 2021;42:3427–520.34455430 [Google Scholar]
- 8. Brignole M, Pentimalli F, Palmisano P, Landolina M, Quartieri F, Occhetta E et al. AV junction ablation and cardiac resynchronization for patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and narrow QRS: the APAF-CRT mortality trial. Eur Heart J 2021;42:4731–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Van Gelder IC, Rienstra M, Bunting KV, Casado-Arroyo R, Caso V, Crijns HJGM et al. 2024 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2024;45:3314–414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Krijthe BP, Kunst A, Benjamin EJ, Lip GYH, Franco OH, Hofman A et al. Projections on the number of individuals with atrial fibrillation in the European union, from 2000 to 2060. Eur Heart J 2013;34:2746–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Di Carlo A, Bellino L, Consoli D, Mori F, Zaninelli A, Baldereschi M et al. Prevalence of atrial fibrillation in the Italian elderly population and projections from 2020 to 2060 for Italy and the European union: the FAI project. Europace 2019;21:1468–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Molitor N, Auricchio A, Delacretaz E, Domenichini G, Kuehne M, Menafoglio A et al. Swiss national cardiac device registry: changing trends in pacemaker and ICD procedures over the last two decades. Europace 2024;26:euae102–423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Capucci A, Santini M, Padeletti L, Gulizia M, Botto G, Boriani G et al. Monitored atrial fibrillation duration predicts arterial embolic events in patients suffering from bradycardia and atrial fibrillation implanted with antitachycardia pacemakers. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:1913–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Park YJ, Kim JS, Park KM, On YK, Park SJ. Subclinical atrial fibrillation burden and adverse clinical outcomes in patients with permanent pacemakers. Stroke 2021;52:1299–308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Healey JS, Connolly SJ, Gold MR, Israel CW, Van Gelder IC, Capucci A et al. Subclinical atrial fibrillation and the risk of stroke. N Engl J Med 2012;366:120–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Glotzer TV, Daoud EG, Wyse DG, Singer DE, Ezekowitz MD, Hilker C et al. The relationship between daily atrial tachyarrhythmia burden from implantable device diagnostics and stroke risk: the TRENDS study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2009;2:474–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Akoum N, McGann C, Vergara G, Badger T, Ranjan R, Mahnkopf C et al. Atrial fibrosis quantified using late gadolinium enhancement MRI is associated with sinus node dysfunction requiring pacemaker implant. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2012;23:44–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Ozcan C, Jahangir A, Friedman PA, Patel PJ, Munger TM, Rea RF et al. Long-term survival after ablation of the atrioventricular node and implantation of a permanent pacemaker in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1043–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Defaye P, Biffi M, El-Chami M, Boveda S, Glikson M, Piccini J et al. Cardiac pacing and lead devices management: 25 years of research at EP europace journal. Europace 2023;25:euad202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Somma V, Ha FJ, Palmer S, Mohamed U, Agarwal S. Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of definition, prevalence, risk factors, and management. Heart Rhythm 2023;20:282–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Conen D, Rodondi N, Müller A, Beer JH, Ammann P, Moschovitis G et al. Relationships of overt and silent brain lesions with cognitive function in patients with atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;73:989–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Kühne M, Krisai P, Coslovsky M, Rodondi N, Müller A, Beer JH et al. Silent brain infarcts impact on cognitive function in atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2022;43:2127–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Bunch TJ, Day JD, Olshansky B, Stolen KQ, Mullin CM. Newly detected atrial fibrillation in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is a strong risk marker of increased mortality. Heart Rhythm 2009;6:2–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Conen D, Rodondi N, Müller A, Beer JH, Auricchio A, Ammann P et al. Design of the Swiss atrial fibrillation cohort study (Swiss-AF): structural brain damage and cognitive decline among patients with atrial fibrillation. Swiss Med Wkly 2017;147:w14467. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Blum S, Muff C, Aeschbacher S, Ammann P, Erne P, Moschovitis G et al. Prospective assessment of sex-related differences in symptom Status and health perception among patients with atrial fibrillation. J Am Heart Assoc 2017;6:e005401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Merkely B, Hatala R, Merkel E, Szigeti M, Veres B, Fábián A et al. Benefits of upgrading right ventricular to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation. Europace 2024;26:euae179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Camm AJ, Kirchhof P, Lip GYH, Schotten U, Savelieva I, Ernst S et al. Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: the task force for the management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2010;31:2369–429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:344–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Friberg L, Hammar N, Pettersson H, Rosenqvist M. Increased mortality in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: report from the Stockholm cohort-study of atrial fibrillation (SCAF). Eur Heart J 2007;28:2346–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. John CA, Günter B, Harry C, Paul D, Peter K, Jean-Yves LH et al. Real-life observations of clinical outcomes with rhythm- and rate-control therapies for atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:493–501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Healey JS, Oldgren J, Ezekowitz M, Zhu J, Pais P, Wang J et al. Occurrence of death and stroke in patients in 47 countries 1 year after presenting with atrial fibrillation: a cohort study. The Lancet 2016;388:1161–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Savelieva I, Fumagalli S, Kenny RA, Anker S, Benetos A, Boriani G et al. EHRA expert consensus document on the management of arrhythmias in frailty syndrome, endorsed by the heart rhythm society (HRS), Asia Pacific heart rhythm society (APHRS), Latin America heart rhythm society (LAHRS), and cardiac arrhythmia society of south. Europace 2023;25:1249–76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Moghtadaei M, Jansen HJ, Mackasey M, Rafferty SA, Bogachev O, Sapp JL et al. The impacts of age and frailty on heart rate and sinoatrial node function. J Physiol 2016;594:7105–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Proietti M, Romiti GF, Raparelli V, Diemberger I, Boriani G, Vecchia D et al. Frailty prevalence and impact on outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1,187,000 patients. Ageing Res Rev 2022;79:101652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Lip GYH. The ABC pathway: an integrated approach to improve AF management. Nat Rev Cardiol 2017;14:627–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Hendriks JML, Tieleman RG, Vrijhoef HJM, Wijtvliet P, Gallagher C, Prins MH et al. Integrated specialized atrial fibrillation clinics reduce all-cause mortality: post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Europace 2019;21:1785–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Ellenbogen KA, Auricchio A, Burri H, Gold MR, Leclercq C, Leyva F et al. The evolving state of cardiac resynchronization therapy and conduction system pacing: 25 years of research at EP europace journal. Europace 2023;25:euad168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Jastrzębski M, Kiełbasa G, Cano O, Curila K, Zanon F, Pestrea C et al. Left bundle branch area pacing vs right ventricular pacing for atrioventricular block: the MELOS RELOADED study. Eur Heart J 2025:ehaf699. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Chow CLD, Wong C, Sutherland N, Obeyesekere MN, Wong GR, Eastwood CM et al. Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing vs right ventricular septal pacing in atrioventricular block: the CSPACE randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2025;86:563–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.