Patient Selection and Long-Term Outcomes of Pace & Ablate Strategy in Atrial Fibrillation (REPACE)

September 25, 2026 updated by: Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital Bern

Patient Selection and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With a Pace & Ablate Strategy for Interventional Rate Control in Symptomatic Permanent Atrial Fibrillation - A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis

Atrioventricular node ablation with permanent pacing (the "pace-and-ablate" strategy) controls ventricular rate in atrial fibrillation that has not responded to drug therapy or catheter ablation. Chronic right ventricular pacing, however, can cause pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM), and it is not well established which patients are at risk and should therefore receive conduction system pacing or biventricular pacing instead.

REPACE is a multicentre retrospective cohort of consecutive patients who underwent atrioventricular node ablation from January 2011 onwards at five centres in Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Poland: Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Inselspital Bern, University Hospital Basel, Geneva University Hospitals and the Silesian Centre for Heart Diseases, Zabrze. More than 2,000 patients ablated up to March 2024 have been included to date; patients ablated after that date at the participating centres are being added.

The study has three aims: to validate, in an independent multicentre population, a previously published risk model for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy; to describe the procedural technique and outcomes of atrioventricular node ablation across different health systems; and to estimate the health-economic impact of the pace-and-ablate strategy.

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy is defined as an absolute reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 10 percentage points to a value below 50%. All potential endpoints are adjudicated by a clinical events committee blinded to the classification made at the site.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Data collection. Baseline demographics, comorbidity, device and procedural data, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic measurements, follow-up events and mortality were abstracted from hospital records at each participating centre into a central electronic case report form.

Endpoint adjudication. Every potential endpoint is reviewed by two independent adjudicators blinded to the classification made at the site, with a third reviewer consulted where they disagree. Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy is assessed on every adjudicated event, independently of how that event is otherwise classified.

Analysis populations. The validation of the risk model is performed in the patients who had neither cardiac resynchronisation therapy nor conduction system pacing at baseline, because a decline in left ventricular function in an already resynchronised patient represents non-response to resynchronisation rather than pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Patients with resynchronisation at baseline are described and contribute to the procedural and health-economic analyses. No lower limit of baseline ejection fraction is applied: since the definition requires a fall of at least 10 percentage points to a value below 50%, patients already below 50% at baseline can meet it.

Health-economic analysis. Direct costs are derived from Hospital Episode Statistics in the United Kingdom, individual procedure costs from the SwissEPnet registry for Switzerland, and diagnosis-related group and hospital costs for Switzerland and Poland, covering hospital charges, device costs and subsequent care for complications and follow-up. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses use Markov models to compare pacing strategies.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Estimated)

2600

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

      • Zabrze, Poland, 41-800
        • Recruiting
        • Silesian Centre for Heart Diseases
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Agnieszka Babińska, MD
      • Basel, Switzerland, 4031
        • Recruiting
        • University Hospital Basel
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Christian Sticherling, MD
      • Geneva, Switzerland, 1205
        • Recruiting
        • Geneva University Hospitals
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Haran Burri, MD
    • Canton of Bern
      • Bern, Canton of Bern, Switzerland, 3010
        • Recruiting
        • Inselspital, Universitätsspital Bern
        • Contact:
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Nikola A Kozhuharov, PD Dr. med.
    • Merseyside
      • Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom, L14 3PE
        • Recruiting
        • Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital
        • Contact:
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Dhiraj Gupta, MD, FRCP

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Consecutive adults with symptomatic atrial fibrillation refractory to drug therapy or catheter ablation who underwent atrioventricular node ablation as part of a pace-and-ablate strategy at five participating centres in Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Poland from January 2011 onwards.

Retrospective inclusion is covered by general consent to the further use of health-related data where this is on file. For deceased or uncontactable patients with no documented refusal, inclusion is covered by the exception from consent under Article 34 of the Swiss Human Research Act (Absence of informed consent), the project having been approved by the Kantonale Ethikkommission Bern. The United Kingdom site operates under IRAS 314643.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age 18 years or older at the time of atrioventricular node ablation
  • Atrial fibrillation, undergoing atrioventricular node ablation with a permanent cardiac implantable electronic device already in situ or implanted as part of the pace-and-ablate strategy
  • Availability of baseline echocardiographic data, including left ventricular ejection fraction

Exclusion Criteria:

* Documented refusal of the further use of health-related data

Note: cardiac resynchronisation therapy or conduction system pacing at baseline is not an eligibility exclusion. Such patients are included in the cohort and in the procedural and health-economic analyses, but are excluded from the validation of the pacing-induced cardiomyopathy risk model, in which a decline in left ventricular function would represent non-response to resynchronisation. No lower limit of baseline ejection fraction is applied.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Observational Models: COHORT
  • Time Perspectives: RETROSPECTIVE

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Pace-and-ablate cohort

Consecutive adults with atrial fibrillation who underwent atrioventricular node ablation with a permanent cardiac implantable electronic device at the five participating centres from January 2011 onwards. Within this cohort, the patients who had neither cardiac resynchronisation therapy nor conduction system pacing at baseline form the population for the validation of the pacing-induced cardiomyopathy risk model.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Incidence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM)
Time Frame: From atrioventricular node ablation up to 10 years

Proportion of patients who develop PICM, defined as an absolute reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 10 percentage points to a value below 50% on echocardiography after atrioventricular node ablation with ventricular pacing. Each potential event is adjudicated by two independent reviewers blinded to the classification made at the site, with a third reviewer consulted in case of disagreement.

From atrioventricular node ablation up to 10 years

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
All-cause mortality by pacing modality
Time Frame: From atrioventricular node ablation up to 5 years

Proportion of patients who die from any cause, reported separately for right ventricular pacing, biventricular pacing and conduction system pacing.

From atrioventricular node ablation up to 5 years
Heart failure hospitalisation by pacing modality
Time Frame: From atrioventricular node ablation up to 5 years

Proportion of patients with at least one hospitalisation for heart failure, reported separately for right ventricular pacing, biventricular pacing and conduction system pacing.

From atrioventricular node ablation up to 5 years
Acute procedural success of atrioventricular node ablation
Time Frame: Periprocedural (index atrioventricular node ablation)

Proportion of procedures with complete atrioventricular block at the end of the procedure, i.e. intended loss of atrioventricular conduction with transition to ventricular pacing.

Periprocedural (index atrioventricular node ablation)
Use of a second ablation catheter, by type of first ablation catheter (irrigated versus non-irrigated)
Time Frame: Periprocedural (index atrioventricular node ablation)

Proportion of procedures in which a second ablation catheter was required to achieve atrioventricular block, reported separately for procedures started with an irrigated and with a non-irrigated catheter.

Periprocedural (index atrioventricular node ablation)
Presence of a ventricular escape rhythm after atrioventricular node ablation
Time Frame: Periprocedural (index atrioventricular node ablation)

Proportion of patients with a ventricular escape rhythm documented at the end of the atrioventricular node ablation procedure.

Periprocedural (index atrioventricular node ablation)
Procedure duration by use of a long sheath
Time Frame: Periprocedural (index atrioventricular node ablation)

Duration of the atrioventricular node ablation procedure in minutes, reported separately for procedures performed with and without a long sheath.

Periprocedural (index atrioventricular node ablation)
Cumulative direct healthcare costs per patient
Time Frame: From atrioventricular node ablation up to 5 years

Cumulative direct healthcare costs per patient in euros, covering the index procedure (hospital stay, device and consumables) and subsequent hospital care for complications and follow-up. Costs are derived from Hospital Episode Statistics (United Kingdom), the SwissEPnet registry and diagnosis-related group data (Switzerland, Poland) and converted to euros.

From atrioventricular node ablation up to 5 years
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of conduction system pacing versus right ventricular pacing
Time Frame: From atrioventricular node ablation up to 5 years

Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, estimated with a Markov model from the observed event rates and direct healthcare costs, overall and across strata of predicted pacing-induced cardiomyopathy risk and of procedural complexity.

From atrioventricular node ablation up to 5 years
Return to sinus rhythm during follow-up
Time Frame: From atrioventricular node ablation up to 5 years

Proportion of patients with documented return to sinus rhythm on electrocardiogram or device interrogation after atrioventricular node ablation.

From atrioventricular node ablation up to 5 years
Discrimination of the published and of an updated pacing-induced cardiomyopathy risk model (C-statistic)
Time Frame: From atrioventricular node ablation up to 10 years

C-statistic (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) for predicting pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, reported for the previously published risk model as originally specified and for a model updated in this cohort (recalibration and re-estimation of predictor weights, with candidate additional predictors), in patients without cardiac resynchronisation therapy or conduction system pacing at baseline.

From atrioventricular node ablation up to 10 years
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of biventricular pacing versus right ventricular pacing
Time Frame: From atrioventricular node ablation up to 5 years

Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, estimated with a Markov model from the observed event rates and direct healthcare costs, overall and across strata of predicted pacing-induced cardiomyopathy risk and of procedural complexity.

From atrioventricular node ablation up to 5 years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

January 5, 2011

Primary Completion (Estimated)

June 30, 2027

Study Completion (Estimated)

December 31, 2027

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 8, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 25, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

October 1, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

October 1, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 25, 2026

Last Verified

September 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 2019-01151
  • 2019 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)
  • 4079 (Other Identifier: Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital Bern)
  • 314643 (Other Identifier: IRAS, UK Health Research Authority)

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Subscribe