ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Device-Specific Responses to Pacemaker-Mediated Arrhythmia in Patients With Prolonged Ventriculoatrial Conduction: A Comparative Simulation Study.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pacemaker-mediated tachycardia (PMT) triggered by prolonged ventriculoatrial conduction (VAC) can be challenging to detect and terminate. The behavior of device-specific anti-PMT algorithms in such scenarios, as well as the potential utility of DDI mode as an alternative strategy, remain to be fully elucidated. Methods: Five dual-chamber pacemakers from Abbott, BIOTRONIK, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and MicroPort CRM were tested using an electrophysiological simulator under VAC times of 450 ms and 550 ms. We assessed (1) PMT detection and termination in DDD mode, (2) atrial sensing within the post-ventricular atrial refractory period (PVARP) in DDI mode, and (3) the timing adjustment of atrial pacing after retrograde atrial sensing. Results: At VAC 450 ms, all devices except Medtronic detected PMT. Only Abbott terminated PMT at 550 ms with a shortened AV delay. Four devices detected atrial events within PVARP at 450 ms, whereas only BIOTRONIK did so at 550 ms. Among these, BIOTRONIK, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic adapted atrial pacing timing following atrial sensing within the refractory period, while Abbott did not, resulting in repetitive nonreentrant ventriculoatrial synchrony. Conclusions: Anti-PMT performance varies markedly among manufacturers. Devices featuring a longer PVARP and an atrial pacing delay algorithm provide superior protection against pacemaker-mediated arrhythmias during prolonged VAC. These findings underscore the importance of individualized pacemaker selection and careful programming.
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.