Observational studyPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2025
Hitting the Wall: The Hidden Challenge of 2:1 Block in Pacemaker Patients.
Observational study in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hitting the Wall: The Hidden Challenge of 2:1 Block in Pacemaker Patients.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDual-chamber pacemakers incorporate proprietary algorithms to optimize atrioventricular (AV) synchronization and prevent pacemaker-mediated arrhythmias. Patients have recently presented to our center with severe exercise intolerance due to the early onset of 2:1 AV block caused by Biotronik's Auto-PVARP and 2:1 Lock-in protection algorithms. This study evaluates the relationship of these algorithms to low 2:1 block rates in a large cohort of remotely monitored pacemaker patients.
methodsWe troubleshooted the patients with symptomatic exercise intolerance. We then performed an observational study using remote monitoring data from 895 patients implanted with Biotronik pacemakers, programmed in DDD(R) mode with the Auto-PVARP algorithm activated. We analyzed PVARP settings, 2:1 block rates, and their relationship with age-predicted maximal sinus rates.
resultsAmong the 895 remotely monitored patients, the majority had significantly prolonged PVARP settings, lowering their 2:1 block rate. At the most recent transmission, only 37% had a PVARP ≤225 ms, while 63% had longer values (275-375 ms), leading to lower 2:1 block thresholds. The 2:1 block rate was below the age-predicted maximal sinus rate in 48% of patients, suggesting a high risk of pacing-induced exercise limitations. The prolonged PVARP was largely driven by Auto-PVARP extensions, often without documented pacemaker-mediated tachycardia (PMT). These findings indicate that a significant proportion of pacemaker-dependent patients may unknowingly experience pacing-related exercise intolerance.
conclusionThe Biotronik Auto-PVARP algorithm frequently extends the refractory period, lowering the threshold for 2:1 block and potentially limiting exercise capacity in active patients. Disabling Auto-PVARP and setting a fixed, shorter PVARP may improve exercise tolerance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.