Pacing delivered rate and rhythm control for atrial fibrillation.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Device therapy for atrial fibrillation remains contentious despite the recognized benefit of atrial pacing in sinus node dysfunction. There are various new specialized pacing algorithms that aim to provide rhythm or rate control in atrial fibrillation. We review the various options for device therapy and the evidence available concerning their effectiveness.


RECENT FINDINGS
Randomized trials on preventative algorithms for atrial fibrillation have not shown consistent benefit. Anti-tachycardia pacing for atrial fibrillation has inherent problems illustrated in this review and has failed to demonstrate objective improvement except in the case of atrial flutter. Several large randomized trials have demonstrated an adverse outcome with right ventricular apical pacing. These studies have shown an increase in atrial fibrillation with ventricular pacing. Recent studies have emphasised the importance of right ventricular apical pacing in burden of atrial fibrillation and therefore we discuss the likely confounding effect on previous trials and speculate on future directions.


SUMMARY
The use of a device with atrial fibrillation prevention algorithms in a patient with a bradycardia indication for pacing is not unreasonable but there is no hard evidence of benefit. Patients with sinus node dysfunction should be paced in the atrium alone. There is no indication for use of a device for atrial fibrillation without a conventional indication for pacing.