Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 24, 2026
Real-Time Cardiac Mapping with a Noninvasive Imageless Electrocardiographic Imaging System
Published on: April 11, 2025
Effectiveness of Ventricular Intrinsic Preference (VIP™) and Ventricular AutoCapture (VAC) algorithms in pacemaker
Rakesh Yadav1, Aparna Jaswal2, Sridevi Chennapragada3
1Department of Cardiology, All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, India.
Background:
Several past clinical studies have demonstrated that frequent and unnecessary right ventricular pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome and compromised atrio-ventricular conduction (AVC) produces long-term adverse effects. The safety and efficacy of two pacemaker algorithms, Ventricular Intrinsic Preference™ (VIP) and Ventricular AutoCapture (VAC), were evaluated in a multi-center study in pacemaker patients.
Methods:
We evaluated 80 patients across 10 centers in India. Patients were enrolled within 15 days of dual chamber pacemaker (DDDR) implantation, and within 45 days thereafter were classified to either a compromised AVC (cAVC) arm or an intact AVC (iAVC) arm based on intrinsic paced/sensed (AV/PV) delays. In each arm, patients were then randomized (1:1) into the following groups: VIP OFF and VAC OFF (Control group; CG), or VIP ON and VAC ON (Treatment Group; TG). Subsequently, the AV/PV delays in the CG groups were mandatorily programmed at 180/150 ms, and to up to 350 ms in the TG groups. The percentage of right ventricular pacing (%RVp) evaluated at 12-month post-implantation follow-ups were compared between the two groups in each arm. Additionally, in-clinic time required for collecting device data was compared between patients programmed with the automated AutoCapture algorithm activated (VAC ON) vs. the manually programmed method (VAC OFF).
Results:
Patients randomized to the TG with the VIP algorithm activated exhibited a significantly lower %RVp at 12 months than those in the CG in both the cAVC arm (39±41% vs. 97±3%; p=0.0004) and the iAVC arm (15±25% vs. 68±39%; p=0.0067). In-clinic time required to collect device data was less in patients with the VAC algorithm activated. No device-related adverse events were reported during the year-long study period.
Conclusions:
In our study cohort, the use of the VIP algorithm significantly reduced the %RVp, while the VAC algorithm reduced in-clinic time needed to collect device data.
More Related Videos
06:57Ablation of Ischemic Ventricular Tachycardia Using a Multipolar Catheter and 3-dimensional Mapping System for High-density Electro-anatomical Reconstruction
Published on: January 31, 2019
06:10Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
Related Concept Videos
01:29Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
01:25ECG Interpretation of Arrhythmias II: Atrial, Junctional and Ventricular Arrhythmias