Dual-chamber paced patients without high-degree AV block at baseline are at higher risk of atrial arrhythmias when inappropriately paced in the right ventricle: a sub-analysis of the EMERALD study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background/Introduction Unnecessary right ventricular pacing (RVP) can have deleterious effects including an increased risk of atrial arrhythmia (AA) and heart failure during follow-up (FU) in dual-chamber (DR) paced patients. While previous studies have shown that these increased risks occur with RVP>40%, the EMERALD Study demonstrated an increased risk for RVP>1%. Few data exist on the interaction between the amount of RVP and the presence/absence of high-degree atrio-ventricular block (AVB) as a pacing indication at baseline. Purpose The EMERALD (AssEssment of CoMorbiditiEs & Atrial ArRhythmiA Burden In DuaL-Chamber PaceD Patients) Study was a real-world registry designed to assess the impact of RVP burden on the risk of developing persistent/permanent AA (Pers-AA) over 2-year FU. The primary endpoint was the difference in Pers-AA in subjects with high (>40%) and low (<40%) RVP. This sub-analysis aimed to identify the interaction between RVP and the presence/absence of high-degree AVB at baseline in relation to the incidence of Pers-AA. Methods EMERALD was a non-interventional, prospective, multi-center registry conducted at 186 centers in 12 countries. Enrolled subjects were implanted with a DR pacemaker according to ESC or ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines. Subjects were excluded if they had a history of Pers-AA. Devices could be implanted as de-novo, replacement or upgrade therapy. Programming was left to the investigators' discretion. Subjects were followed for at least 24 months. Pers-AA was defined as: >22 h/day of AA for >7 consecutive days; Pers-AA diagnosed during any FU visit; AA-related ablation or cardioversion carried out in the FU period. We compared the incidence of Pers-AA between subjects with (n=1529) and without (n=1948) high-degree AVB as a baseline pacing indication. Results Eligible FU data were available for n=3477 subjects. The overall population was nearly evenly split - High RVP (47.7%) and Low RVP (52.3%). In the High RVP group, 11.7% experienced at least one Pers-AA episode versus 9.1% in the Low RVP group (p=0.006). In this sub-analysis, the prevalence of RVP>40% was higher in patients with high-degree AVB at baseline (74% vs 26%). Although the incidence of Pers-AA was similar in the group with high-degree AVB at baseline (High RVP 8.7% vs Low RVP 7.4%), in the group without high-degree AVB at baseline, those with High RVP developed a significantly higher incidence of Pers-AA (High RVP 18.2% vs Low RVP 9.5%, p value for interaction 0.0275; Figure 1). An analysis with a newly identified RVP threshold of 1% confirmed a high incidence of Pers-AA only in the group without high-degree AVB at baseline (18% vs 3.5%, p value for interaction 0.2265; Figure 2). Conclusions The baseline pacing indication sub-analysis of the EMERALD Study shows that patients without high-degree AVB as a baseline indication are at highest risk of Pers-AA. Efforts should be made to avoid any unnecessary RVP in this subgroup of patients. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): MicroPort CRM (Clamart, France)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".