Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 10, 2026

Catheter Ablation in Combination With Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 26, 2013
Multisite atrial pacing for atrial fibrillation prevention: where to go from here?
Anand Ramdat Misier1, Willem P Beukema, Roger Willems
1Department of Cardiology, Isala Clinics, Location Weezenlanden, Zwolle, The Netherlands. a.ramdatmisier@diagram-zwolle.nl
Insights
Multi-site atrial pacing may help prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence by improving atrial conduction. While not statistically significant in this study, dual-site pacing showed longer arrhythmia-free intervals, suggesting potential benefits for AF patients.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Electrophysiology
- Medical Devices
Background:
- Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia linked to stroke and mortality.
- Pharmacological treatments often fail to prevent AF recurrence.
- Multi-site atrial pacing aims to improve atrial conduction and reduce AF inducibility.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy of dual-site right atrial pacing versus single-site high right atrial pacing in preventing AF recurrence.
- To evaluate the impact of pacing strategy on arrhythmia-free intervals in patients with symptomatic, medically refractory AF.
Main Methods:
- A prospective randomized crossover trial involving patients with symptomatic, medically refractory AF.
- Patients were randomized to initial dual-site or single-site pacing, then crossed over after 6 months or study endpoint.
- Outcome measures included arrhythmia-free intervals and event-free intervals (AF > 48 hours).
Main Results:
- Dual-site pacing demonstrated longer arrhythmia-free intervals (162 days vs. 143 days in Group I; 114 days vs. 97 days in Group II) compared to single-site pacing, though not statistically significant (p=0.061).
- The sequence of pacing treatment periods significantly affected outcomes (p < 0.02).
- Event-free intervals were longer with dual-site pacing, but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.055) due to treatment interaction.
Conclusions:
- Multi-site atrial pacing may offer clinical benefits for medically refractory symptomatic AF patients by improving atrial resynchronization.
- Further prospective randomized studies with parallel designs are needed to confirm the clinical benefits and avoid carry-over effects.
Abstract:
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with stroke, increased mortality and with a negative impact on quality of life. Pharmacologic treatments for AF have not provided long-term relief from arrhythmia recurrence. Multi-site atrial pacing was introduced by Daubert and colleagues about 10 years ago for the treatment of severe atrial conduction delays in patients with sick sinus syndrome. They found that this type of atrial stimulation reduced or prevented AF. Multi-site atrial pacing results in reduction of intra-atrial and interatrial conduction differences and diminishes heterogeneity of refractoriness, i.e. atrial resynchronization. Acute electrophysiological studies have shown that biatrial stimulation reduced AF inducibility. The Dutch Dual-site Right Atrial Pacing for Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation study was a prospective randomized crossover trial comparing the recurrences of AF in dual-site right atrial and single-site high right atrial pacing in patients with symptomatic medically refractory AF, without or with minimal structural heart disease. Patients were randomized to initial dual-site pacing (Group I n = 18) or initial single-site (Group II n = 22) pacing. After 6 months or after a study endpoint was reached patients were crossed over to the other pacing modality.Although, the arrhythmia free intervals were longer for dual-site pacing during both treatments periods (Group I 162 +/- 12 and Group II 114 +/- 15 days) compared to single-site pacing (Group I 143 +/- 16 and Group II 97 +/- 10 days) the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.061). However, the sequence of the randomized treatment periods had a significant effect on outcome (p < 0.02). Event free intervals (AF > 48 hours requiring electrical cardioversion) were longer during dual-site pacing in both groups compared to single-site stimulation but the difference was statistically not significant (p = 0.055) because of treatment interaction (P < 0.05). To establish the clinical benefits of multi-site pacing for the treatment of patients with medically refractory symptomatic AF, additional prospective randomized studies are needed. Trials with a parallel design are necessary to avoid carry-over effects of different stimulation protocols.
Related Concept Videos
Disturbances in Heart Rhythm
Arrhythmias are categorized by their speed, rhythm, and origin. A slow heart...
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Dysrhythmias VI: Management of Dysrhythmias
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
ECG Interpretation of Arrhythmias II: Atrial, Junctional and Ventricular Arrhythmias

