2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS Focused Update - Heart Rhythm Society

70 Pages·2013·1.75 MB·English

JournaloftheAmericanCollegeofCardiology Vol.61,No.3,2013
©2013bytheAmericanCollegeofCardiologyFoundation,theAmericanHeartAssociation,Inc., ISSN0735-1097/$36.00
andtheHeartRhythmSociety http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.007
PublishedbyElsevierInc.
PRACTICE GUIDELINE
2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS Focused Update Incorporated
Into the ACCF/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for
Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities
A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association
Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society
DevelopedinCollaborationWiththeAmericanAssociationforThoracicSurgery
andSocietyofThoracicSurgeons
2008WRITINGCOMMITTEEMEMBERS
AndrewE.Epstein,MD,FACC,FAHA,FHRS,Chair;JohnP.DiMarco,MD,PHD,FACC,FHRS;
KennethA.Ellenbogen.MD,FACC,FAHA,FHRS;N.A.MarkEstesIII,MD,FACC,FAHA,FHRS;
RogerA.Freedman,MD,FACC,FHRS;LeonardS.Gettes,MD,FACC,FAHA;
A.MarcGillinov,MD,FACC,FAHA;GabrielGregoratos,MD,FACC,FAHA;
StephenC.Hammill,MD,FACC,FHRS;DavidL.Hayes,MD,FACC,FAHA,FHRS;
MarkA.Hlatky,MD,FACC,FAHA;L.KristinNewby,MD,FACC,FAHA;
RichardL.Page,MD,FACC,FAHA,FHRS;MarkH.Schoenfeld,MD,FACC,FAHA,FHRS;
MichaelJ.Silka,MD,FACC;LynneWarnerStevenson,MD,FACC#;MichaelO.Sweeney,MD,FACC
DevelopedinCollaborationWiththeAmericanAssociationforThoracicSurgery,
HeartFailureSocietyofAmerica,andSocietyofThoracicSurgeons
2012WRITINGGROUPMEMBERS*
CynthiaM.Tracy,MD,FACC,FAHA,Chair;AndrewE.Epstein,MD,FACC,FAHA,FHRS,ViceChair*;
DawoodDarbar,MD,FACC,FHRS†;JohnP.DiMarco,MD,PHD,FACC,FHRS*‡;
SandraB.Dunbar,RN,DSN,FAAN,FAHA†;N.A.MarkEstesIII,MD,FACC,FAHA,FHRS*§;
T.BruceFerguson,JR,MD,FACC,FAHA*!¶;StephenC.Hammill,MD,FACC,FHRS‡;
PamelaE.Karasik,MD,FACC,FHRS†;MarkS.Link,MD,FACC,FHRS*†;
JosephE.Marine,MD,FACC,FHRS†;MarkH.Schoenfeld,MD,FACC,FAHA,FHRS*†;
AmitJ.Shanker,MD,FACC,FHRS‡;MichaelJ.Silka,MD,FACC†;LynneWarnerStevenson,MD,FACC*#;
WilliamG.Stevenson,MD,FACC,FAHA,FHRS***;PaulD.Varosy,MD,FACC,FHRS†
*The2012writinggroupmemberswererequiredtorecusethemselvesfromvotingonsectionstowhichtheirspecificrelationshipswithindustryandother
entitiesmayapply;seeAppendix4forrecusalinformation.†ACCF/AHARepresentative.‡HeartRhythmSocietyRepresentative.§ACCF/AHATask
ForceonPerformanceMeasuresLiaison.!AmericanAssociationforThoracicSurgeryRepresentative.¶SocietyofThoracicSurgeonsRepresentative.
#HeartFailureSocietyofAmericaRepresentative.**ACCF/AHATaskForceonPracticeGuidelinesLiaison.
ThisdocumentwasapprovedbytheAmericanCollegeofCardiologyFoundationBoardofTrustees,theAmericanHeartAssociationScienceAdvisory
andCoordinatingCommittee,andtheHeartRhythmSocietyBoardofTrusteesinMay2012.
TheAmericanCollegeofCardiologyFoundationrequeststhatthisdocumentbecitedasfollows:EpsteinAE,DiMarcoJP,EllenbogenKA,EstesNAM
III, Freedman RA, Gettes LS, Gillinov AM, Gregoratos G, Hammill SC, Hayes DL, Hlatky MA, Newby LK, Page RL, Schoenfeld MH, Silka MJ,
StevensonLW,SweeneyMO2012ACCF/AHA/HRSfocusedupdateincorporatedintotheACCF/AHA/HRS2008guidelinesfordevice-basedtherapyof
cardiacrhythmabnormalities:areportoftheAmericanCollegeofCardiologyFoundation/AmericanHeartAssociationTaskForceonPracticeGuidelinesand
theHeartRhythmSociety.JAmCollCardiol2013;61:e6–75.
ThisarticleiscopublishedinCirculation.
Copies: This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the American College of Cardiology (http://www.cardiosource.org) and the
AmericanHeartAssociation(my.americanheart.org).Forcopiesofthisdocument,pleasecontactElsevierInc.ReprintDepartment,fax[phone],
[email protected].
Permissions:Multiplecopies,modification,alteration,enhancement,and/ordistributionofthisdocumentarenotpermittedwithouttheexpresspermissionofthe
AmericanHeartCollegeofCardiologyFoundation.PleasecontactElsevier’[email protected].
Downloaded From: http://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 10/09/2013
JACCVol.61,No.3,2013 Epsteinetal. e7
January22,2013:e6–75 DeviceGuideline:2012UpdateIncorporated
ACCF/AHA TASK FORCE MEMBERS
JeffreyL.Anderson,MD,FACC,FAHA,Chair;AliceK.Jacobs,MD,FACC,FAHA,ImmediatePastChair;
Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect; Nancy M. Albert, PHD, CCNS, CCRN;
Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA; David DeMets, PHD; Steven M. Ettinger, MD, FACC;
Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC; Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA;
Frederick G. Kushner, MD, FACC, FAHA; E. Magnus Ohman, MD, FACC;
William Stevenson, MD, FACC, FAHA; Clyde W. Yancy, MD, FACC, FAHA
2.8.2. FrequencyofTranstelephonicMonitoring...e35
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.8.3. RemoteFollow-UpandMonitoring
(NEWSECTION).....................e35
Preamble(UPDATED)..............................e8
3. IndicationsforImplantable
1. Introduction(UPDATED)........................e10 Cardioverter-DefibrillatorTherapy ..............e35
1.1. OrganizationofCommittee...................e10 3.1. SecondaryPreventionof
1.2. DocumentReviewandApproval..............e11 SuddenCardiacDeath.......................e36
3.1.1. ImplantableCardioverter-DefibrillatorTherapy
1.3. MethodologyandEvidence...................e11
forSecondaryPreventionofCardiacArrest
2. IndicationsforPacing .........................e13
andSustainedVentricularTachycardia......e36
3.1.2. SpecificDiseaseStatesandSecondary
2.1. PacingforBradycardiaDuetoSinusand
PreventionofCardiacArrestorSustained
AtrioventricularNodeDysfunction............e13
VentricularTachycardia..................e37
2.1.1. SinusNodeDysfunction.................e13
3.1.3. CoronaryArteryDisease.................e37
2.1.2. AcquiredAtrioventricularBlockinAdults...e14
3.1.4. NonischemicDilatedCardiomyopathy......e37
2.1.3. ChronicBifascicularBlock ...............e16
3.1.5. HypertrophicCardiomyopathy ............e37
2.1.4. PacingforAtrioventricularBlockAssociated
3.1.6. ArrhythmogenicRightVentricular
WithAcuteMyocardialInfarction.........e17
Dysplasia/Cardiomyopathy ...............e37
2.1.5. HypersensitiveCarotidSinusSyndrome
3.1.7. GeneticArrhythmiaSyndromes...........e37
andNeurocardiogenicSyncope............e18
3.1.8. SyncopeWithInducibleSustained
2.2. PacingforSpecificConditions ...............e19 VentricularTachycardia..................e38
2.2.1. CardiacTransplantation .................e19
3.2. PrimaryPreventionofSuddenCardiacDeath.....e38
2.2.2. NeuromuscularDiseases .................e20
3.2.1. CoronaryArteryDisease.................e38
2.2.3. SleepApneaSyndrome..................e20
3.2.2. NonischemicDilatedCardiomyopathy......e38
2.2.4. CardiacSarcoidosis .....................e20
3.2.3. Long-QTSyndrome ....................e40
2.3. PreventionandTerminationof
3.2.4. HypertrophicCardiomyopathy ............e40
ArrhythmiasbyPacing.......................e20
3.2.5. ArrhythmogenicRightVentricularDysplasia/
2.3.1. PacingtoPreventAtrialArrhythmias ......e21
Cardiomyopathy........................e40
2.3.2. Long-QTSyndrome ....................e21
3.2.6. NoncompactionoftheLeftVentricle.......e41
2.3.3. AtrialFibrillation(Dual-Site,Dual-Chamber,
3.2.7. PrimaryElectricalDisease(Idiopathic
AlternativePacingSites).................e21
VentricularFibrillation,Short-QTSyndrome,
2.4. PacingforHemodynamicIndications .........e22 BrugadaSyndrome,andCatecholaminergic
2.4.1. CardiacResynchronizationTherapy PolymorphicVentricularTachycardia)......e41
(UPDATED)..........................e22 3.2.8. IdiopathicVentricularTachycardias........e42
2.4.2. ObstructiveHypertrophicCardiomyopathy......e25 3.2.9. AdvancedHeartFailureand
2.5. PacinginChildren,Adolescents,andPatients CardiacTransplantation .................e42
WithCongenitalHeartDisease...............e26
3.3. ImplantableCardioverter-Defibrillatorsin
2.6. SelectionofPacemakerDevice..............e28 Children,Adolescents,andPatientsWith
2.6.1. MajorTrialsComparingAtrialorDual- CongenitalHeartDisease....................e44
ChamberPacingWithVentricularPacing...e29 3.3.1. HypertrophicCardiomyopathy ............e45
2.6.2. QualityofLifeandFunctionalStatus
3.4. LimitationsandOtherConsiderations.........e45
EndPoints............................e30
3.4.1. ImpactonQualityofLife
2.6.3. HeartFailureEndPoints ................e31
(InappropriateShocks)...................e45
2.6.4. AtrialFibrillationEndPoints.............e31
3.4.2. SurgicalNeeds.........................e46
2.6.5. StrokeorThromboembolismEndPoints ...e31
3.4.3. PatientLongevityandComorbidities.......e47
2.6.6. MortalityEndPoints....................e31
3.4.4. TerminalCare .........................e48
2.6.7. ImportanceofMinimizingUnnecessary
VentricularPacing......................e31 3.5. Cost-EffectivenessofImplantable
2.6.8. RoleofBiventricularPacemakers..........e32 Cardioverter-DefibrillatorTherapy ............e49
2.7. OptimizingPacemakerTechnologyandCost......e32 3.6. SelectionofImplantable
Cardioverter-DefibrillatorGenerators .........e40
2.8. PacemakerFollow-Up........................e33
2.8.1. LengthofElectrocardiographicSamples 3.7. ImplantableCardioverter-Defibrillator
forStorage ............................e34 Follow-Up ...................................e50
Downloaded From: http://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 10/09/2013
e8 Epsteinetal. JACCVol.61,No.3,2013
DeviceGuideline:2012UpdateIncorporated January22,2013:e6–75
3.7.1. ElementsofImplantable sues of patient preference that may influence the choice of
Cardioverter-DefibrillatorFollow-Up.......e50 particular tests or therapies are considered, as well as fre-
3.7.2. FocusonHeartFailureAfterFirst quency of follow-up and cost-effectiveness. When available,
AppropriateImplantableCardioverter-
informationfromstudiesoncostwillbeconsidered;however,
DefibrillatorTherapy....................e51
reviewofdataonefficacyandclinicaloutcomeswillconsti-
4. AreasinNeedofFurtherResearch.............e52
tutetheprimarybasisforpreparingrecommendationsinthese
guidelines.
References(UPDATED)...........................e52 The guidelines will be reviewed annually by the Task
Force. Each guideline is considered current unless it is
Appendix1.2008AuthorRelationshipsWith updated,revised,orapublishedaddendumdeclaresitoutof
IndustryandOtherEntities(Relevant) ............e66 dateandnolongerofficialACCF/AHApolicy.Keepingpace
withthestreamofnewdataandevolvingevidenceonwhich
Appendix2.2008ReviewerRelationshipsWith guidelinerecommendationsarebasedisanongoingchallenge
IndustryandOtherEntities(Relevant) ............e68 to timely development of clinical practice guidelines. In an
effort to respond promptly to new evidence, the Task Force
Appendix3.AbbreviationsList(UPDATED).........e70 hascreateda“focusedupdate”processtorevisetheexisting
guidelinerecommendationsthatareaffectedbyevolvingdata
oropinion.Newevidenceisreviewedinanongoingfashion
Appendix4.2012AuthorRelationshipsWith
tomoreefficientlyrespondtoimportantscienceandtreatment
IndustryandOtherEntities(Relevant)(NEW)......e71
trends that could have a major impact on patient outcomes
and quality of care.
Appendix5.2012ReviewerRelationshipsWith
The 2012 focused update was prompted following a
IndustryandOtherEntities(Relevant)(NEW)......e73
thorough review of late-breaking clinical trials presented at
nationalandinternationalmeetings,inadditiontoothernew
Appendix6.2012IndicationsforCRT
published data deemed to have an impact on patient care
Therapy–Algorithm(NEW).........................e75
(Section 1.3, “Methodology and Evidence”). Through a
broad-based vetting process, the studies included are identi-
Preamble (UPDATED) fiedasbeingimportanttotherelevantpatientpopulation.The
focused update is not intended to be based on a complete
It is important that the medical profession play a significant literature review from the date of the previous guideline
role in critically evaluating the use of diagnostic procedures publication but rather to include pivotal new evidence that
and therapies as they are introduced and tested in the mayaffectchangestocurrentrecommendations.Seethe2012
detection, management, or prevention of disease states. Rig- focused update for the complete preamble and evidence
orous and expert analysis of the available data documenting review period (1).
absolute and relative benefits and risks of those procedures Inanalyzingthedataanddevelopingrecommendationsand
andtherapiescanproducehelpfulguidelinesthatimprovethe supporting text, the focused update writing group uses
effectiveness of care, optimize patient outcomes, and favor- evidence-based methodologies developed by the Task Force
ably affect the overall cost of care by focusing resources on (1a).TheClassofRecommendation(COR)isanestimateof
the most effective strategies. the size of the treatment effect, with consideration given to
TheAmericanCollegeofCardiologyFoundation(ACCF) risks versus benefits, as well as evidence and/or agreement
and the American Heart Association (AHA) have jointly thatagiventreatmentorprocedureisorisnotuseful/effective
engaged in the production of such guidelines in the area of and in some situations may cause harm. The Level of
cardiovascular disease since 1980. The ACCF/AHA Task Evidence(LOE)isanestimateofthecertaintyorprecisionof
ForceonPracticeGuidelines(TaskForce),whosechargeisto the treatment effect. The writing group reviews and ranks
develop, update, or revise practice guidelines for important evidence supporting each recommendation, with the weight
cardiovascular diseases and procedures, directs this effort. ofevidencerankedasLOEA,B,orC,accordingtospecific
Writing committees are charged with the task of performing definitionsthatareincludedinTable1.Studiesareidentified
an assessment of the evidence and acting as an independent as observational, retrospective, prospective, or randomized,
groupofauthorstodevelop,update,orrevisewrittenrecom- as appropriate. For certain conditions for which inadequate
mendations for clinical practice. data are available, recommendations are based on expert
Experts in the subject under consideration have been consensusandclinicalexperienceandarerankedasLOEC.
selected from both organizations to examine subject-specific WhenrecommendationsatLOECaresupportedbyhistorical
data and write guidelines. The process includes additional clinical data, appropriate references (including clinical re-
representativesfromothermedicalpractitionerandspecialty views)arecitedifavailable.Forissuesforwhichsparsedata
groupswhenappropriate.Writingcommitteesarespecifically areavailable,asurveyofcurrentpracticeamongtheclinician
chargedtoperformaliteraturereview,weighthestrengthof members of the writing group is the basis for LOE C
evidence for or against a particular treatment or procedure, recommendations, and no references are cited. The schema
and include estimates of expected health outcomes where for COR and LOE is summarized in Table 1, which also
data exist. Patient-specific modifiers, comorbidities, and is- provides suggested phrases for writing recommendations
Downloaded From: http://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 10/09/2013
JACCVol.61,No.3,2013 Epsteinetal. e9
January22,2013:e6–75 DeviceGuideline:2012UpdateIncorporated
Table1. ApplyingClassificationofRecommendationsandLevelofEvidence
ArecommendationwithLevelofEvidenceBorCdoesnotimplythattherecommendationisweak.Manyimportantclinicalquestionsaddressedintheguidelines
donotlendthemselvestoclinicaltrials.Althoughrandomizedtrialsareunavailable,theremaybeaveryclearclinicalconsensusthataparticulartestortherapyis
usefuloreffective.
*Dataavailablefromclinicaltrialsorregistriesabouttheusefulness/efficacyindifferentsubpopulations,suchassex,age,historyofdiabetes,historyofprior
myocardialinfarction,historyofheartfailure,andprioraspirinuse.
†Forcomparativeeffectivenessrecommendations(ClassIandIIa;LevelofEvidenceAandBonly),studiesthatsupporttheuseofcomparatorverbsshouldinvolve
directcomparisonsofthetreatmentsorstrategiesbeingevaluated.
withineachCOR.Anewadditiontothismethodologyforthe (GDMT) to represent optimal medical therapy as defined by
2012focusedupdateisseparationoftheClassIIIrecommen- ACCF/AHA guideline (primarily Class I)–recommended
dations to delineate whether the recommendation is deter- therapies. This new term, GDMT, is incorporated into the
minedtobeof“nobenefit”orisassociatedwith“harm”tothe 2012 focused update and will be used throughout all future
patient. (This version of the COR/LOE table was used for guidelines.
development of the 2012 Focused Update and is included in Because the ACCF/AHA practice guidelines address pa-
the current document. (1)) In addition, in view of the tientpopulations(andhealthcareproviders)residinginNorth
increasingnumberofcomparativeeffectivenessstudies,com- America, drugs that are not currently available in North
parator verbs and suggested phrases for writing recommen- AmericaarediscussedinthetextwithoutaspecificCOR.For
dationsforthecomparativeeffectivenessofonetreatmentor studiesperformedinlargenumbersofsubjectsoutsideNorth
strategy versus another have been added for COR I and IIa, America,eachwritinggroupreviewsthepotentialimpactof
LOE A or B only. different practice patterns and patient populations on the
In view of the advances in medical therapy across the treatment effect and relevance to the ACCF/AHA target
spectrum of cardiovascular diseases, the Task Force has populationtodeterminewhetherthefindingsshouldinforma
designated the term guideline-directed medical therapy specific recommendation.
Downloaded From: http://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 10/09/2013
e10 Epsteinetal. JACCVol.61,No.3,2013
DeviceGuideline:2012UpdateIncorporated January22,2013:e6–75
TheACCF/AHApracticeguidelinesareintendedtoassist in Appendixes 1, 2, 4, and 5, respectively. Additionally, to
healthcare providers in clinical decision making by describ- ensurecompletetransparency,writinggroupmembers’com-
ing a range of generally acceptable approaches to the diag- prehensive disclosure information—including RWI not per-
nosis, management, and prevention of specific diseases or tinenttothisdocument—isavailableasanonlinesupplement.
conditions. The guidelines attempt to define practices that Comprehensive disclosure information for the Task Force is
meet the needs of most patients in most circumstances. The also available online at http://cardiosource.org/ACC/About-
ultimate judgment about care of a particular patient must be ACC/Who-We-Are/Leadership/Guidelines-and-Documents-
madebythehealthcareproviderandpatientinlightofallthe Task-Forces.aspx. The work of the 2012 writing group is
circumstancespresentedbythatpatient.Asaresult,situations supported exclusively by the ACCF, AHA, and the Heart
may arise in which deviations from these guidelines may be RhythmSociety(HRS)withoutcommercialsupport.Writing
appropriate. Clinical decision making should consider the group members volunteered their time for this activity.
qualityandavailabilityofexpertiseintheareawherecareis Guidelines are official policy of both the ACCF and AHA.
provided. When these guidelines are used as the basis for InApril2011,theInstituteofMedicinereleased2reports:
regulatory or payer decisions, the goal should be improve- Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for System-
ment in quality of care. The Task Force recognizes that aticReviewsandClinicalPracticeGuidelinesWeCanTrust
situationsariseinwhichadditionaldataareneededtoinform (1b,1c).ItisnoteworthythattheACCF/AHApracticeguide-
patient care more effectively; these areas will be identified lines were cited as being compliant with many of the
within each respective guideline when appropriate. standards that were proposed. A thorough review of these
Prescribed courses of treatment in accordance with these reports and our current methodology is under way, with
recommendations are effective only if they are followed. further enhancements anticipated.
Because lack of patient understanding and adherence may The current document is a republication of the “ACCF/
adversely affect outcomes, physicians and other healthcare AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of
providers should make every effort to engage the patient’s Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities,” (1d) revised to incorporate
active participation in prescribed medical regimens and life- updated recommendations and text from the 2012 Focused
styles. In addition, patients should be informed of the risks, Update (1). For easy reference, this online-only version
benefits,andalternativestoaparticulartreatmentandshould denotes sections that have been updated.
be involved in shared decision making whenever feasible,
Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA
particularlyforCORIIaandIIb,forwhichthebenefit-to-risk
Chair, ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines
ratio may be lower.
TheTaskForcemakeseveryefforttoavoidactual,poten-
1. Introduction (UPDATED)
tial,orperceivedconflictsofinterestthatmayariseasaresult
of industry relationships or personal interests among the
members of the writing group. All writing group members 1.1. Organization of Committee
andpeerreviewersoftheguidelinearerequiredtodiscloseall This 2008 revision of the ACCF/AHA/HRS Guidelines for
current healthcare–related relationships, including those ex- Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities
isting 12 months before initiation of the writing effort. (formallynamed“ACC/AHA/NASPEGuidelinesforImplan-
For the 2008 guidelines, all members of the writing tation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices”)
committee, as well as peer reviewers of the document, were updatesthepreviousversionspublishedin1984,1991,1998,
asked to provide disclosure statements of all such relation- and 2002. Revision of the statement was deemed necessary
ships that may be perceived as real or potential conflicts of formultiplereasons:1)Majorstudieshavebeenreportedthat
interest. Writing committee members are also strongly en- have advanced our knowledge of the natural history of
couragedtodeclareapreviousrelationshipwithindustrythat bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias, which may be
may be perceived as relevant to guideline development. treated optimally with device therapy; 2) there have been
In December 2009, the ACCF and AHA implemented a tremendous changes in the management of heart failure that
new policy for relationships with industry and other entities involvebothdruganddevicetherapy;and3)majoradvances
(RWI) that requires the writing group chair plus a minimum inthetechnologyofdevicestotreat,delay,andevenprevent
of 50% of the writing group to have no relevant RWI morbidity and mortality from bradyarrhythmias, tachyar-
(Appendix 4 includes the ACCF/AHA definition of rele- rhythmias, and heart failure have occurred. The writing
vance).ThesestatementsarereviewedbytheTaskForceand committee was composed of physicians who are experts in
all members during each conference call and/or meeting of the areas of device therapy and follow-up and senior clini-
the writing group and are updated as changes occur. All cians skilled in cardiovascular care, internal medicine, car-
guidelinerecommendationsrequireaconfidentialvotebythe diovascular surgery, ethics, and socioeconomics. The com-
writing group and must be approved by a consensus of the mittee included representatives of the American Association
votingmembers.Membersmaynotdraftorvoteonanytext forThoracicSurgery,HeartFailureSocietyofAmerica,and
or recommendations pertaining to their RWI. The 2012 Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
members who recused themselves from voting are indicated Forthe2012focusedupdate,selectedmembersofthe2008
in the list of writing group members, and specific section Device-Based Therapy (DBT) Writing Committee were in-
recusalsarenotedinAppendix4.2008and2012authors’and vited to participate on the basis of areas of expertise,
peerreviewers’RWIpertinenttothisguidelinearedisclosed requirements for committee rotation, and the current RWI
Downloaded From: http://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 10/09/2013
JACCVol.61,No.3,2013 Epsteinetal. e11
January22,2013:e6–75 DeviceGuideline:2012UpdateIncorporated
policy;thosewhoagreedarereferredtoasthe2012Focused the subject matter previously published by the ACC, AHA,
UpdateWritingGroup.TheHRSwasinvitedtobeapartner andHRS.Referencesselectedandpublishedinthisdocument
on this focused update and has provided representation. The are representative and not all-inclusive.
writing group also included representatives from the Ameri- Thefocusofthe2008guidelinesistheappropriateuseof
can Association for Thoracic Surgery, Heart Failure Society heart pacing devices (e.g., pacemakers for bradyarrhythmias
of America, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. andheartfailuremanagement,cardiacresynchronization,and
implantable cardioverter-defibrillators [ICDs]), not the treat-
1.2. Document Review and Approval mentofcardiacarrhythmias.Thefactthattheuseofadevice
The 2008 Guideline document was reviewed by 2 official for treatment of a particular condition is listed as a Class I
reviewers nominated by each of the ACC, AHA, and HRS indication(beneficial,useful,andeffective)doesnotpreclude
and by 11 additional peer reviewers. Of the total 17 peer the use of other therapeutic modalities that may be equally
reviewers, 10 had no significant relevant relationships with effective. As with all clinical practice guidelines, the recom-
industry. In addition, this document has been reviewed and mendationsinthisdocumentfocusontreatmentofanaverage
approved by the governing bodies of the ACC, AHA, and patient with a specific disorder and may be modified by
HRS, which include 19 ACC Board of Trustees members patientcomorbidities,limitationoflifeexpectancybecauseof
(noneofwhomhadanysignificantrelevantrelationshipswith coexistingdiseases,andothersituationsthatonlytheprimary
industry),15AHAScienceAdvisoryCoordinatingCommit- treating physician may evaluate appropriately.
tee members (none of whom had any significant relevant
Theseguidelinesincludesectionsonselectionofpacemak-
relationships with industry), and 14 HRS Board of Trustees
ersandICDs,optimizationoftechnology,cost,andfollow-up
members(6ofwhomhadnosignificantrelevantrelationships
of implanted devices. Although the section on follow-up is
with industry). All guideline recommendations underwent a
relatively brief, its importance cannot be overemphasized:
formal, blinded writing committee vote. Writing committee
First, optimal results from an implanted device can be
members were required to recuse themselves if they had a
obtained only if the device is adjusted to changing clinical
significant relevant relationship with industry. The guideline
conditions; second, recent advisories and recalls serve as
recommendations were unanimously approved by all mem-
warnings that devices are not infallible, and failure of
bersofthewritingcommitteewhowereeligibletovote.The
electronics, batteries, and leads can occur (2,3).
section “Pacing in Children and Adolescents” was reviewed
The committee considered including a section on extrac-
by additional reviewers with special expertise in pediatric
tion of failed/unused leads, a topic of current interest, but
electrophysiology.Thecommitteethanksallthereviewersfor
electednottodosointheabsenceofconvincingevidenceto
theircomments.Manyoftheirsuggestionswereincorporated
support specific criteria for timing and methods of lead
into the final document.
extraction. A policy statement on lead extraction from the
The 2012 focused update was reviewed by 2 official
North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology
reviewerseachnominatedbytheACCF,AHA,andHRS,as
(now the HRS) provides information on this topic (4).
well as 1 reviewer each from the American Association for
Similarly,theissueofwhentodiscontinuelong-termcardiac
Thoracic Surgery, Heart Failure Society of America, and
pacing or defibrillator therapy has not been studied suffi-
Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and 21 individual content
ciently to allow formulation of appropriate guidelines (5);
reviewers.Allinformationonreviewers’RWIwascollected
however,thequestionisofsuchimportancethatthistopicis
and distributed to the writing group and is published in this
addressed to emphasize the importance of patient-family-
document(Appendix5).The2012focusedupdatewasapproved
physician discussion and ethical principles.
forpublicationbythegoverningbodiesoftheACCF,AHA,and
HRS and was endorsed by the American Association for Thetextthataccompaniesthelistedindicationsshouldbe
ThoracicSurgery,HeartFailureSocietyofAmerica,andSociety read carefully, because it includes the rationale and support-
ofThoracicSurgeons. ing evidence for many of the indications, and in several
instances, it includes a discussion of alternative acceptable
1.3. Methodology and Evidence therapies. Many of the indications are modified by the term
“potentially reversible.” This term is used to indicate abnor-
The recommendations listed in this document are, whenever
possible,evidencebased.Anextensiveliteraturesurveywas malpathophysiology(e.g.,completeheartblock)thatmaybe
conducted that led to the incorporation of 595 references. the result of reversible factors. Examples include complete
Searcheswerelimitedtostudies,reviews,andotherevidence heartblockduetodrugtoxicity(digitalis),electrolyteabnor-
conducted in human subjects and published in English. Key malities,diseaseswithperiatrioventricularnodeinflammation
searchwordsincludedbutwerenotlimitedtoantiarrhythmic, (Lymedisease),andtransientinjurytotheconductionsystem
antibradycardia, atrial fibrillation, bradyarrhythmia, cardiac, at the time of open heart surgery. When faced with a
CRT, defibrillator, device therapy, devices, dual chamber, potentially reversible situation, the treating physician must
heart, heart failure, ICD, implantable defibrillator, device decidehowlongofawaitingperiodisjustifiedbeforedevice
implantation, long-QT syndrome, medical therapy, pace- therapy is begun. The committee recognizes that this state-
maker, pacing, quality-of-life, resynchronization, rhythm, ment does not address the issue of length of hospital stay
sinus node dysfunction, sleep apnea, sudden cardiac death, vis-à-vis managed-care regulations. It is emphasized that
syncope,tachyarrhythmia,terminalcare,andtransplantation. theseguidelinesarenotintendedtoaddressthisissue,which
Additionally, the committee reviewed documents related to falls strictly within the purview of the treating physician.
Downloaded From: http://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 10/09/2013
e12 Epsteinetal. JACCVol.61,No.3,2013
DeviceGuideline:2012UpdateIncorporated January22,2013:e6–75
Theterm“symptomaticbradycardia”isusedinthisdocu- and technical aspects of device therapy, only appropriately
ment. Symptomatic bradycardia is defined as a documented trained physicians should use device therapy. Appropriate
bradyarrhythmiathatisdirectlyresponsiblefordevelopment trainingguidelinesforphysicianshavebeenpublishedprevi-
of the clinical manifestations of syncope or near syncope, ously (10–13).
transient dizziness or lightheadedness, or confusional states The2008revisionreflectswhatthecommitteebelievesare
resulting from cerebral hypoperfusion attributable to slow themostrelevantandsignificantadvancesinpacemaker/ICD
heartrate.Fatigue,exerciseintolerance,andcongestiveheart therapysincethepublicationoftheseguidelinesintheJournalof
failure may also result from bradycardia. These symptoms the American College of Cardiology and Circulation in 2002
may occur at rest or with exertion. Definite correlation of (14,15).
symptoms with a bradyarrhythmia is required to fulfill the Allrecommendationsassumethatpatientsaretreatedwith
criteriathatdefinesymptomaticbradycardia.Cautionshould optimalmedicaltherapyaccordingtopublishedguidelines,as
be exercised not to confuse physiological sinus bradycardia had been required in all the randomized controlled clinical
(as occurs in highly trained athletes) with pathological bra- trials on which these guidelines are based, and that human
dyarrhythmias. Occasionally, symptoms may become appar- issues related to individual patients are addressed. The
entonlyinretrospectafterantibradycardiapacing.Neverthe- committee believes that comorbidities, life expectancy, and
less, the universal application of pacing therapy to treat a quality-of-life (QOL) issues must be addressed forthrightly
specificheartratecannotberecommendedexceptinspecific withpatientsandtheirfamilies.Wehaverepeatedlyusedthe
circumstances, as detailed subsequently. phrase “reasonable expectation of survival with a good
Intheseguidelines,theterms“persistent,”“transient,”and functional status for more than 1 year” to emphasize this
“notexpectedtoresolve”areusedbutnotspecificallydefined integration of factors in decision-making. Even when physi-
because the time element varies in different clinical condi- cians believe that the anticipated benefits warrant device
tions. The treating physician must use appropriate clinical implantation,patientshavetheoptiontodeclineintervention
judgment and available data in deciding when a condition is after having been provided with a full explanation of the
persistentorwhenitcanbeexpectedtobetransient.Section potential risks and benefits of device therapy. Finally, the
2.1.4, “Pacing for Atrioventricular Block Associated With committee is aware that other guideline/expert groups have
AcuteMyocardialInfarction,”overlapswiththe“ACC/AHA interpreted the same data differently (16–19).
Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST- Inpreparingthisrevision,thecommitteewasguidedbythe
Elevation Myocardial Infarction” (6) and includes expanded following principles:
indications and stylistic changes. The statement “incidental
findingatelectrophysiologicalstudy”isusedseveraltimesin 1. Changesinrecommendationsandlevelsofevidencewere
this document and does not mean that such a study is made either because of new randomized trials or because
indicated. Appropriate indications for electrophysiological of the accumulation of new clinical evidence and the
studies have been published (7). development of clinical consensus.
The section on indications for ICDs has been updated to 2. The committee was cognizant of the health care, logistic,
reflect the numerous new developments in this field and the and financial implications of recent trials and factored in
voluminous literature related to the efficacy of these devices these considerations to arrive at the classification of
in the treatment and prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death certain recommendations.
(SCD)andmalignantventriculararrhythmias.Aspreviously 3. For recommendations taken from other guidelines, word-
noted, indications for ICDs, cardiac resynchronization ther- ing changes were made to render some of the original
apy (CRT) devices, and combined ICDs and CRT devices recommendations more precise.
(hereaftercalledCRT-Ds)arecontinuouslychangingandcan 4. Thecommitteewouldliketoreemphasizethattherecom-
be expected to change further as new trials are reported. mendations in this guideline apply to most patients but
Indeed, it is inevitable that the indications for device may require modification because of existing situations
therapy will be refined with respect to both expanded use that only the primary treating physician can evaluate
and the identification of patients expected to benefit the properly.
most from these therapies. Furthermore, it is emphasized 5. All of the listed recommendations for implantation of a
thatwhenapatienthasanindicationforbothapacemaker devicepresumetheabsenceofincitingcausesthatmaybe
(whether it be single-chamber, dual-chamber, or biven- eliminated without detriment to the patient (e.g., nones-
tricular) and an ICD, a combined device with appropriate sential drug therapy).
programming is indicated. 6. The committee endeavored to maintain consistency of
In this document, the term “mortality” is used to indicate recommendations in this and other previously published
all-causemortalityunlessotherwisespecified.Thecommittee guidelines. In the section on atrioventricular (AV) block
elected to use all-cause mortality because of the variable associated with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the
definition of sudden death and the developing consensus to recommendationsfollowcloselythoseinthe“ACC/AHA
use all-cause mortality as the most appropriate end point of Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-
clinical trials (8,9). Elevation Myocardial Infarction” (6). However, because
These guidelines are not designed to specify training or of the rapid evolution of pacemaker/ICD science, it has
credentials required for physicians to use device therapy. not always been possible to maintain consistency with
Nevertheless,inviewofthecomplexityofboththecognitive other published guidelines.
Downloaded From: http://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 10/09/2013
JACCVol.61,No.3,2013 Epsteinetal. e13
January22,2013:e6–75 DeviceGuideline:2012UpdateIncorporated
For the 2012 focused update, late-breaking clinical trials such as ischemia or infarction, infiltrative disease, collagen
presentedattheannualscientificmeetingsoftheACC,AHA, vascular disease, surgical trauma, endocrinologic abnormali-
HRS, and European Society of Cardiology (2008 through ties, autonomic insufficiency, and others (24).
2010),aswellasotherselecteddatareportedthroughFebru- The clinical manifestations of SND are diverse, reflecting
ary2012,werereviewedbytheguidelinewritinggroupalong therangeoftypicalsinoatrialrhythmdisturbances.Themost
with the Task Force and other experts to identify trials and dramaticpresentationissyncope.Themechanismofsyncope
other key data that might affect guideline recommendations. is a sudden pause in sinus impulse formation or sinus exit
Studies relevant to the management of patients treated with block, either spontaneously or after the termination of an
DBT for cardiac rhythm abnormalities were identified and atrial tachyarrhythmia, that causes cerebral hypoperfusion.
reviewed. On the basis of these data, the writing group The pause in sinus node activity is frequently accompanied
determinedthatupdatestothe2008guidelinewerenecessary by an inadequate, delayed, or absent response of subsidiary
for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and device escape pacemakers in the AV junction or ventricular myo-
follow-up.Thewritinggroupalsothoroughlyreviewedother cardium, which aggravates the hemodynamic consequences.
sections from the 2008 DBT guideline on hypertrophic However, in many patients, the clinical manifestations of
cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/ SNDaremoreinsidiousandrelatetoaninadequateheartrate
cardiomyopathy, genetic arrhythmia syndromes, congenital response to activities of daily living that can be difficult to
heart disease, primary electrical disease, and terminal care; diagnose(25).Theterm“chronotropicincompetence”isused
anddeterminedthatalthoughsomenewinformationmaybe to denote an inadequate heart rate response to physical
available,therecommendationsremaincurrent.Seethe2012 activity. Although many experienced clinicians claim to
focused update for a complete review of the scope (1). recognize chronotropic incompetence in individual patients,
nosinglemetrichasbeenestablishedasadiagnosticstandard
2. Indications for Pacing upon which therapeutic decisions can be based. The most
obvious example of chronotropic incompetence is a mono-
tonicdailyheartrateprofileinanambulatorypatient.Various
2.1. Pacing for Bradycardia Due to Sinus and
protocols have been proposed to quantify subphysiological
Atrioventricular Node Dysfunction
heart rate responses to exercise (26,27), and many clinicians
Insomepatients,bradycardiaistheconsequenceofessen-
would consider failure to achieve 80% of the maximum
tial long-term drug therapy of a type and dose for which
predicted heart rate (220 minus age) at peak exercise as
thereisnoacceptablealternative.Inthesepatients,pacing
evidence of a blunted heart rate response (28,29). However,
therapy is necessary to allow maintenance of ongoing
noneoftheseapproacheshavebeenvalidatedclinically,and
medical treatment.
itislikelythattheappropriateheartrateresponsetoexercise
2.1.1. Sinus Node Dysfunction in individual patients is too idiosyncratic for standardized
Sinus node dysfunction (SND) was first described as a testing.
clinical entity in 1968 (20), although Wenckebach reported The natural history of untreated SND may be highly
the electrocardiographic (ECG) manifestation of SND in variable. The majority of patients who have experienced
1923. SND refers to a broad array of abnormalities in sinus syncope because of a sinus pause or marked sinus bradycar-
node and atrial impulse formation and propagation. These dia will have recurrent syncope (30). Not uncommonly, the
includepersistentsinusbradycardiaandchronotropicincom- natural history of SND is interrupted by other necessary
petencewithoutidentifiablecauses,paroxysmalorpersistent medical therapies that aggravate the underlying tendency to
sinusarrestwithreplacementbysubsidiaryescaperhythmsin bradycardia (24). MOST (Mode Selection Trial) included
the atrium, AV junction, or ventricular myocardium. The symptomatic pauses greater than or equal to 3 seconds or
frequentassociationofparoxysmalatrialfibrillation(AF)and sinus bradycardia with rates greater than 50 bpm, which
sinus bradycardia or sinus bradyarrhythmias, which may restricted the use of indicated long-term medical therapy.
oscillatesuddenlyfromonetotheother,usuallyaccompanied Supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) including AF was pres-
by symptoms, is termed “tachy-brady syndrome.” ent in 47% and 53% of patients, respectively, enrolled in a
SNDisprimarilyadiseaseoftheelderlyandispresumed large randomized clinical trial of pacing mode selection in
to be due to senescence of the sinus node and atrial muscle. SND (22,31). The incidence of sudden death is extremely
Collected data from 28 different studies on atrial pacing for low, and SND does not appear to affect survival whether
SND showed a median annual incidence of complete AV untreated (30) or treated with pacemaker therapy (32,33).
blockof0.6%(range0%to4.5%)withatotalprevalenceof The only effective treatment for symptomatic bradycardia
2.1% (range 0% to 11.9%) (21). This suggests that the is permanent cardiac pacing. The decision to implant a
degenerative process also affects the specialized conduction pacemakerforSNDisoftenaccompaniedbyuncertaintythat
system,althoughtherateofprogressionisslowanddoesnot arises from incomplete linkage between sporadic symptoms
dominatetheclinicalcourseofdisease(21).SNDistypically and ECG evidence of coexisting bradycardia. It is crucial to
diagnosedintheseventhandeighthdecadesoflife,whichis distinguish between physiological bradycardia due to auto-
also the average age at enrollment in clinical trials of nomic conditions or training effects and circumstantially
pacemaker therapy for SND (22,23). Identical clinical man- inappropriate bradycardia that requires permanent cardiac
ifestationsmayoccuratanyageasasecondaryphenomenon pacing. For example, sinus bradycardia is accepted as a
ofanyconditionthatresultsindestructionofsinusnodecells, physiological finding that does not require cardiac pacing in
Downloaded From: http://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 10/09/2013
e14 Epsteinetal. JACCVol.61,No.3,2013
DeviceGuideline:2012UpdateIncorporated January22,2013:e6–75
trainedathletes.Suchindividualsmayhaveheartratesof40 CLASSIIb
to 50 bpm while at rest and awake and may have a sleeping
1. Permanent pacemaker implantation may be considered in
rateasslowas30bpm,withsinuspausesorprogressivesinus
minimally symptomatic patients with chronic heart rate less
slowing accompanied by AV conduction delay (PR prolon-
than 40 bpm while awake. (Level of Evidence: C) (53,55,56,
gation), sometimes culminating in type I second-degree AV
58–60)
block (34,35). The basis of the distinction between physio-
logical and pathological bradycardia, which may overlap in CLASSIII
ECGpresentation,thereforepivotsoncorrelationofepisodic 1. PermanentpacemakerimplantationisnotindicatedforSNDin
bradycardia with symptoms compatible with cerebral hypo- asymptomaticpatients.(LevelofEvidence:C)
perfusion.IntermittentECGmonitoringwithHoltermonitors 2. PermanentpacemakerimplantationisnotindicatedforSNDin
and event recorders may be helpful (36,37), although the patients for whom the symptoms suggestive of bradycardia
durationofmonitoringrequiredtocapturesuchevidencemay have been clearly documented to occur in the absence of
beverylong(38).Theuseofinsertablelooprecordersoffers bradycardia.(LevelofEvidence:C)
the advantages of compliance and convenience during very 3. Permanent pacemaker implantation is not indicated for SND
long-term monitoring efforts (39). with symptomatic bradycardia due to nonessential drug ther-
Theoptimalpacingsystemforpreventionofsymptomatic apy.(LevelofEvidence:C)
bradycardia in SND is unknown. Recent evidence suggests
2.1.2. Acquired Atrioventricular Block in Adults
that ventricular desynchronization due to right ventricular
AV block is classified as first-, second-, or third-degree
apical (RVA) pacing may have adverse effects on left
(complete)block;anatomically,itisdefinedassupra-,intra-,
ventricular (LV) and left atrial structure and function (40–47).
or infra-His. First-degree AV block is defined as abnormal
These adverse effects likely explain the association of RVA
prolongation of the PR interval (greater than 0.20 seconds).
pacing,independentofAVsynchrony,withincreasedrisksof
Second-degreeAVblockissubclassifiedastypeIandtypeII.
AF and heart failure in randomized clinical trials of pace-
TypeIsecond-degreeAVblockischaracterizedbyprogres-
maker therapy (45,48,49) and, additionally, ventricular ar-
siveprolongationoftheintervalbetweentheonsetofatrial(P
rhythmias and death during ICD therapy (50,51). Likewise,
wave) and ventricular (R wave) conduction (PR) before a
although simulation of the normal sinus node response to
nonconducted beat and is usually seen in conjunction with
exercise in bradycardia patients with pacemaker sensors
QRS. Type I second-degree AV block is characterized by
seems logical, a clinical benefit on a population scale has
progressiveprolongationofthePRintervalbeforeanoncon-
not been demonstrated in large randomized controlled
ducted beat and a shorter PR interval after the blocked beat.
trials of pacemaker therapy (52). These rapidly evolving
TypeIIsecond-degreeAVblockischaracterizedbyfixedPR
areas of clinical investigation should inform the choice of
intervals before and after blocked beats and is usually
pacing system in SND (see Section 2.6, “Selection of
associatedwithawideQRScomplex.WhenAVconduction
Pacemaker Device”).
occurs in a 2:1 pattern, block cannot be classified unequivo-
callyastypeIortypeII,althoughthewidthoftheQRScan
Recommendations for Permanent Pacing in
besuggestive,asjustdescribed.Advancedsecond-degreeAV
Sinus Node Dysfunction
blockreferstotheblockingof2ormoreconsecutivePwaves
CLASSI with some conducted beats, which indicates some preserva-
tion of AV conduction. In the setting of AF, a prolonged
1. PermanentpacemakerimplantationisindicatedforSNDwith
pause (e.g., greater than 5 seconds) should be considered to
documented symptomatic bradycardia, including frequent si-
be due to advanced second-degree AV block. Third-degree
nus pauses that produce symptoms. (Level of Evidence: C)
AVblock(completeheartblock)isdefinedasabsenceofAV
(53–55)
conduction.
2. Permanent pacemaker implantation is indicated for symp-
Patients with abnormalities of AV conduction may be
tomatic chronotropic incompetence. (Level of Evidence: C)
asymptomaticormayexperienceserioussymptomsrelatedto
(53–57)
bradycardia, ventricular arrhythmias, or both. Decisions re-
3. Permanentpacemakerimplantationisindicatedforsymptom-
gardingtheneedforapacemakerareimportantlyinfluenced
aticsinusbradycardiathatresultsfromrequireddrugtherapy
bythepresenceorabsenceofsymptomsdirectlyattributable
formedicalconditions.(LevelofEvidence:C)
to bradycardia. Furthermore, many of the indications for
CLASSIIa pacing have evolved over the past 40 years on the basis of
1. PermanentpacemakerimplantationisreasonableforSNDwith experience without the benefit of comparative randomized
heartratelessthan40bpmwhenaclearassociationbetween clinical trials, in part because no acceptable alternative
significant symptoms consistent with bradycardia and the options exist to treat most bradycardias.
actual presence of bradycardia has not been documented. Nonrandomized studies strongly suggest that permanent
(LevelofEvidence:C)(53–55,58–60) pacing does improve survival in patients with third-degree
2. Permanentpacemakerimplantationisreasonableforsyncope AV block, especially if syncope has occurred (63–68).
ofunexplainedoriginwhenclinicallysignificantabnormalities Although there is little evidence to suggest that pacemakers
of sinus node function are discovered or provoked in electro- improve survival in patients with isolated first-degree AV
physiologicalstudies.(LevelofEvidence:C)(61,62) block (69), it is now recognized that marked (PR more than
Downloaded From: http://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 10/09/2013
JACCVol.61,No.3,2013 Epsteinetal. e15
January22,2013:e6–75 DeviceGuideline:2012UpdateIncorporated
300 milliseconds) first-degree AV block can lead to symp- and is associated with a poor prognosis; thus, pacing is
tomsevenintheabsenceofhigherdegreesofAVblock(70). indicated(81,82).LongsinuspausesandAVblockcanalso
When marked first-degree AV block for any reason causes occur during sleep apnea. In the absence of symptoms,
atrial systole in close proximity to the preceding ventricular these abnormalities are reversible and do not require
systole and produces hemodynamic consequences usually pacing (83). If symptoms are present, pacing is indicated
associatedwithretrograde(ventriculoatrial)conduction,signs as in other conditions.
andsymptomssimilartothepacemakersyndromemayoccur Recommendations for permanent pacemaker implantation
(71). With marked first-degree AV block, atrial contraction inpatientswithAVblockinAMI,congenitalAVblock,and
occurs before complete atrial filling, ventricular filling is AVblockassociatedwithenhancedvagaltonearediscussed
compromised,andanincreaseinpulmonarycapillarywedge in separate sections. Neurocardiogenic causes in young pa-
pressure and a decrease in cardiac output follow. Small tients with AV block should be assessed before proceeding
uncontrolled trials have suggested some symptomatic and with permanent pacing. Physiological AV block in the
functionalimprovementbypacingofpatientswithPRinter- presence of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias does not con-
vals more than 0.30 seconds by decreasing the time for AV stitute an indication for pacemaker implantation except as
conduction (70). Finally, a long PR interval may identify a specifically defined in the recommendations that follow.
subgroup of patients with LV dysfunction, some of whom In general, the decision regarding implantation of a pace-
may benefit from dual-chamber pacing with a short(er) AV makermustbeconsideredwithrespecttowhetherAVblock
delay (72). These same principles also may be applied to will be permanent. Reversible causes of AV block, such as
patientswithtypeIsecond-degreeAVblockwhoexperience electrolyte abnormalities, should be corrected first. Some
hemodynamic compromise due to loss of AV synchrony, diseases may follow a natural history to resolution (e.g.,
even without bradycardia. Although echocardiographic or
Lyme disease), and some AV block can be expected to
invasive techniques may be used to assess hemodynamic
reverse(e.g.,hypervagotoniaduetorecognizableandavoid-
improvement before permanent pacemaker implantation,
able physiological factors, perioperative AV block due to
such studies are not required.
hypothermia,orinflammationneartheAVconductionsystem
TypeIsecond-degreeAVblockisusuallyduetodelayin
after surgery in this region). Conversely, some conditions
theAVnodeirrespectiveofQRSwidth.Becauseprogression
may warrant pacemaker implantation because of the pos-
toadvancedAVblockinthissituationisuncommon(73–75),
sibility of disease progression even if the AV block
pacingisusuallynotindicatedunlessthepatientissymptom-
reverses transiently (e.g., sarcoidosis, amyloidosis, and
atic.Althoughcontroversyexists,pacemakerimplantationis
neuromuscular diseases). Finally, permanent pacing for
supportedforthisfinding(76–78).TypeIIsecond-degreeAV
AV block after valve surgery follows a variable natural
block is usually infranodal (either intra- or infra-His), espe-
history; therefore, the decision for permanent pacing is at
ciallywhentheQRSiswide.Inthesepatients,symptomsare
the physician’s discretion (84).
frequent, prognosis is compromised, and progression to
third-degree AV block is common and sudden (73,75,79). Recommendations for Acquired
Thus, type II second-degree AV block with a wide QRS Atrioventricular Block in Adults
typically indicates diffuse conduction system disease and
constitutes an indication for pacing even in the absence of CLASSI
symptoms. However, it is not always possible to determine
1. Permanent pacemaker implantation is indicated for third-
thesiteofAVblockwithoutelectrophysiologicalevaluation,
degreeandadvancedsecond-degreeAVblockatanyanatomic
because type I second-degree AV block can be infranodal
level associated with bradycardia with symptoms (including
even when the QRS is narrow (80). If type I second-degree
heartfailure)orventriculararrhythmiaspresumedtobedueto
AVblockwithanarroworwideQRSisfoundtobeintra-or
AVblock.(LevelofEvidence:C)(59,63,76,85)
infra-Hisian at electrophysiological study, pacing should be
2. Permanent pacemaker implantation is indicated for third-
considered. degreeandadvancedsecond-degreeAVblockatanyanatomic
Because it may be difficult for both patients and their levelassociatedwitharrhythmiasandothermedicalconditions
physicians to attribute ambiguous symptoms such as fatigue thatrequiredrugtherapythatresultsinsymptomaticbradycar-
to bradycardia, special vigilance must be exercised to ac- dia.(LevelofEvidence:C)(59,63,76,85)
knowledge the patient’s concerns about symptoms that may 3. Permanent pacemaker implantation is indicated for third-
becausedbyaslowheartrate.Inapatientwiththird-degree degreeandadvancedsecond-degreeAVblockatanyanatomic
AV block, permanent pacing should be strongly considered level in awake, symptom-free patients in sinus rhythm, with
evenwhentheventricularrateismorethan40bpm,because documented periods of asystole greater than or equal to 3.0
the choice of a 40 bpm cutoff in these guidelines was not seconds(86)oranyescaperatelessthan40bpm,orwithan
determinedfromclinicaltrialdata.Indeed,itisnottheescape escaperhythmthatisbelowtheAVnode.(LevelofEvidence:C)
ratethatisnecessarilycriticalforsafetybutratherthesiteof (53,58)
origin of the escape rhythm (i.e., in the AV node, the His 4. Permanent pacemaker implantation is indicated for third-
bundle, or infra-His). degreeandadvancedsecond-degreeAVblockatanyanatomic
AV block can sometimes be provoked by exercise. If not levelinawake,symptom-freepatientswithAFandbradycardia
secondarytomyocardialischemia,AVblockinthiscircum- with1ormorepausesofatleast5secondsorlonger.(Levelof
stance usually is due to disease in the His-Purkinje system Evidence:C)
Downloaded From: http://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 10/09/2013