Optimising the management of temporary epicardial atrial pacing to combat postoperative atrial fibrillation

Temporary epicardial pacing is a cornerstone of postoperative cardiac care, but improper management, particularly of atrial pacing, may contribute to the onset of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF). In this article we review the challenges involved in identifying atrial lead malfunction and the associated arrhythmogenic risk. As well as implementing strategies to reduce risk, the development of advanced technology capable of detecting and correcting atrial pacing dysfunction in real time should be a priority.

Introduction

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a significant complication following cardiac surgery, affecting up to 55% of patients.¹ POAF typically manifests within six days post-surgery and is associated with severe outcomes, including stroke, thromboembolism, and cardiac arrest. Patients experiencing POAF face a two-fold increase in mortality risk and a prolonged hospital stay of 3.7 additional days on average.^1,2 The mechanisms of POAF remain incompletely understood, but likely involve postoperative inflammation, sympathetic activation, and cardiac ischaemia, combined with pre-existing conditions, such as hypertension and atrial enlargement, which promote atrial fibrillation (AF) induction and maintenance.

While risk factors for POAF are well-documented, its primary trigger remains unclear. Literature suggests pulmonary vein ectopy as a potential trigger.³ Yet, amid the well-documented risk factors of POAF, one critical, yet often overlooked, contributor following cardiac surgery is the management of temporary epicardial atrial pacing – an element that could play a pivotal role in preventing or precipitating arrhythmic complications.

Challenges in temporary epicardial pacemaker management

Temporary epicardial pacing is essential for addressing bradyarrhythmias in the immediate postoperative period. However, gaps in research and clinical practice undermine its safety and efficacy. Reade (2007) highlighted the critical importance of comprehensive knowledge of epicardial pacing systems,⁴ while Cronin et al. (2022) emphasised the need for detailed understanding among healthcare providers.⁵ Despite these recommendations, audits in major UK cardiac centres revealed that 38–43% of patients had pacemaker programming errors,⁶ reflecting systemic deficiencies in training and adherence to protocols.

Inconsistent device checks exacerbate these issues. Coates et al. (2021) reported limited success in improving safety protocol adherence through targeted interventions,⁷ and Mohamed et al. (2023) found that over half of nurses managing temporary pacing devices exhibited unsatisfactory knowledge levels.⁸ Addressing these deficiencies requires enhanced education, robust protocols, and the development of innovation in temporary pacing technology to prevent device-related complications, particularly with atrial leads.

Atrial lead management and arrhythmogenic risks

Temporary epicardial pacing is not without risks. Improper management has been linked to severe arrhythmias, such as R-on-T pacing events leading to ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. These events often arise from changes in lead parameters due to degeneration or displacement, causing undersensing of intrinsic cardiac activity. Studies show that pacing lead function deteriorates rapidly, with significant changes in sensing thresholds potentially occurring within days of implantation.^9,10

While much attention has been focused on ventricular lead complications, atrial leads are equally susceptible to dysfunction, posing unique arrhythmogenic risks. Unlike ventricular electrograms, atrial electrograms are more vulnerable to signal amplitude variations. Even slight reductions in signal amplitude can result in undersensing, potentially leading to inappropriate atrial pacing and arrhythmia initiation.

Atrial undersensing

Atrial lead undersensing and AF initiation is of particular concern postoperatively, where subtle malfunctions often go unnoticed (figure 1). As stated, undersensing may result in inappropriate pacing creating conditions conducive to AF initiation. Studies have shown that atrial ectopic beats are significant AF triggers, with timing playing a crucial role in arrhythmogenesis.^11,12 Friedman et al. (1996) demonstrated that atrial ectopy during a specific zone of vulnerability consistently induced AF.¹³ Similarly, undersensing-induced pacing could mimic atrial ectopy effects, triggering AF in susceptible patients if occurring within this zone of vulnerability.

Atrial loss of capture

Loss of atrial capture poses both significant haemodynamic and arrhythmogenic risks. The atrial kick, responsible for 20–30% of ventricular filling, is crucial for maintaining cardiac output, particularly in patients with impaired ventricular function.¹⁴ However, in those capable of retrograde conduction through the atrioventricular (AV) node, the absence of atrial capture leaves tissue in a non-refractory state, and may facilitate retrograde atrial activation via ventriculoatrial (VA) conduction. These retrograde wavefronts can act as ectopic triggers, increasing the likelihood of AF initiation in susceptible patients.

Atrial oversensing

Atrial lead oversensing, characterised by the inappropriate detection of extraneous signals leading to the inhibition of necessary pacing, can compromise haemodynamic stability. Additionally, oversensing can result in inappropriate ventricular pacing at upper tracking rates, further exacerbating haemodynamic compromise and increasing arrhythmic risk. Beyond these concerns, oversensing in the atrial lead may also contribute to the onset of POAF through a mechanism similar to loss of capture. By preventing atrial depolarisation, oversensing may facilitate retrograde wavefronts via VA conduction, creating ectopic conditions that can act as triggers for AF in postoperative patients.

Discussion

POAF is a multi-faceted complication with significant implications for patient outcomes. Traditional risk factors, such as inflammation and ischaemia are well-recognised, but the role of atrial pacing dysfunction as a potential trigger remains underexplored. Addressing this gap requires a multi-disciplinary approach, integrating insights from permanent pacing research and electrophysiological studies into temporary pacing management.

To reduce risks associated with atrial lead malfunction, the following strategies are recommended:

1. Enhanced monitoring: regular device checks, ideally every 8–12 hours, with attention to atrial sensing and capture thresholds.
2. Education and training: comprehensive training programmes to improve knowledge among healthcare providers managing temporary pacemakers.
3. Protocol development: standardised protocols for device management, emphasising prompt identification and correction of atrial lead malfunctions.
4. Research initiatives: studies to better understand the relationship between atrial lead dysfunction and POAF, providing a stronger evidence-base for targeted interventions.

In addition to pacing strategies, pharmacological interventions, such as beta blockers, amiodarone and colchicine, are widely used to reduce the incidence of POAF. Similarly, maintaining electrolyte balance – particularly normalising serum potassium and magnesium levels – is standard practice and may help stabilise atrial tissue and suppress ectopy.^15,16 However, while these approaches may reduce the overall arrhythmic burden, they are unlikely to prevent POAF triggered by temporary pacing dysfunction. Arrhythmias arising from atrial oversensing, undersensing, or loss of capture represent a distinct, device-mediated mechanism of arrhythmogenesis that pharmacological therapy alone cannot address. This further supports the need for enhanced monitoring, training, and technological innovation in temporary pacing management.

Final remarks

While this article draws on published studies and clinical experience, it is presented as a perspective on an under-recognised aspect of postoperative care. The association between temporary atrial pacing dysfunction and POAF, although biologically plausible and supported by emerging evidence, warrants further investigation through prospective, controlled studies. The views expressed are intended to prompt reflection and stimulate research rather than serve as definitive clinical guidance.

Conclusion

Temporary epicardial pacing is a cornerstone of postoperative cardiac care, but improper management, particularly of atrial pacing, may contribute to the onset of POAF. Furthermore, it is important to recognise that identifying atrial lead malfunction is notoriously challenging. Subtle changes in heart rate or mean arterial pressure are often misattributed to general postoperative instability rather than an underlying pacing issue. To effectively address these challenges, it is essential to acknowledge that enhanced training for healthcare professionals managing temporary pacing may not be sufficient, and the development of advanced technology capable of detecting and correcting atrial pacing dysfunction in real time should be a priority.

Key messages

• Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common arrhythmia after cardiac surgery, affecting up to 30–40% of patients, and is associated with increased length of stay, morbidity, and healthcare costs
• Risk stratification and monitoring are essential: early identification of patients at higher risk of POAF can guide prophylaxis and streamline management
• POAF is often transient, but its occurrence is linked to higher long-term risk of recurrent atrial fibrillation and stroke, warranting careful follow-up and anticoagulation consideration
• Preventive and early treatment strategies — including beta blockers, amiodarone, and pacing approaches — can reduce incidence and burden, highlighting the importance of guideline-directed care

Conflicts of interest

DSA-M and JOMO are Directors of VentriPace Medical Ltd. CM: none declared.

Funding

None.

References

1. Woldendorp K, Farag J, Khadra S, Black D, Robinson B, Bannon P. Postoperative atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2021;122:2084–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.10.055

2. Lopes LA, Agrawal DK. Post-operative atrial fibrillation: current treatments and etiologies for a persistent surgical complication. J Surg Res (Houst) 2022;5:159–72. https://doi.org/10.26502/jsr.10020209

3. Haïssaguerre M, Jaïs P, Shah DC et al. Spontaneous initiation of atrial fibrillation by ectopic beats originating in the pulmonary veins. N Engl J Med 1998;339:659–66. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199809033391003

4. Reade MC. Temporary epicardial pacing after cardiac surgery: a practical review. Part 1: general considerations in the management of epicardial pacing. Anaesthesia 2007;62:264–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.04950.x

5. Cronin B, Dalia A, Goh R, Essandoh M, O’Brien EO. Temporary epicardial pacing after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2022;36:4427–39. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2022.08.017

6. Desai S, Meese D, Malcomson J et al. Temporary epicardial cardiac pacing post cardiac surgery an audit at a large tertiary centre. Published online 2 October 2008. Available at: https://touchcardio.com/arrhythmia/journal-articles/30-temporary-epicardial-cardiac-pacing-post-cardiac-surgery-an-audit-at-a-large-tertiary-centre/

7. Coates M, Magboo R, Paoloni D, Oscier C, Buerge M. Implementing epicardial pacing safety check protocols in a cardiothoracic ITU. Br J Anaesth 2022;128:e258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2021.12.031

8. Mohamed M, Ahmed O, Elrahman A. Nurses’ performance regarding care of temporary pacemaker among critically ill patients. Egypt J Health Care 2023;14:738–48. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejhc.2023.287207

9. Elmi F, Tullo NG, Khalighi K. Natural history and predictors of temporary epicardial pacemaker wire function in patients after open heart surgery. Cardiology 2002;98:175–80. https://doi.org/10.1159/000067312

10. Lazarescu C, Kara-Mostefa S, Parlanti JM, Clavey M, Mertes PM, Longrois D. Reassessment of the natural evolution and complications of temporary epicardial wires after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2014;28:506–11. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2013.11.002

11. Dewland TA, Vittinghoff E, Mandyam MC et al. Atrial ectopy as a predictor of incident atrial fibrillation: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:721–8. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-11-201312030-00004

12. Yang M, Lin Y, Cheng H et al. Excessive supraventricular ectopic activity and the risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis 2022;9:461. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9120461

13. Friedman H, Sinha B, Tun A et al. Zones of atrial vulnerability: relationships to basic cycle length. Circulation 1996;94:1456–64. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.94.6.1456

14. Namana V, Gupta SS, Sabharwal N, Hollander G. Clinical significance of atrial kick. QJM 2018;111:569–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcy088

15. Howitt SH, Grant SW, Campbell NG, Malagon I, McCollum C. Are serum potassium and magnesium levels associated with atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery? J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2020;34:1152–9. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2019.10.045

16. Gaudino M, Di Franco A, Rong LQ, Piccini J, Mack M. Postoperative atrial fibrillation: from mechanisms to treatment. Eur Heart J 2023;44:1020–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad019