INTRODUCTION: Single lead VDD pacing has offered an alternative to DDD systems in patients with isolated AV block. Up to now, however, the relative performance of these pacemaker systems was not systematically compared. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred sixty patients who received either a VDD pacemaker (n = 180) or a DDD device (n = 180) with a bipolar atrial lead were investigated prospectively for a mean period of 30 +/- 13 months. Pacemaker function was analyzed by telemetry, Holter monitoring, and exercise ECG. Time of implantation and fluoroscopy was significantly lower with VDD devices (44.3 +/- 5.1 min vs 74.4 +/- 13.5 min and 4.6 +/- 2.5 min vs 10.3 +/- 5.6 min in DDD pacemakers, respectively). Intermittent atrial undersensing occurred in 23.3% of patients with a VDD pacemaker and in 9.4% with DDD devices (NS). The incidence of atrial tachyarrhythmias did not differ between the VDD (6.7%) and the DDD group (6.1%). Sinus node dysfunction developed in 1.9% of patients, but the vast majority (85.7%) of patients were asymptomatic. There was a tendency for a higher rate of operative revisions in the DDD group (6.1% vs 3.3% in VDD pacemakers, P = 0.15). Cumulative maintenance of AV-synchronized pacing mode was 94.9% in patients with VDD pacemakers and 92.1% with DDD devices (NS). CONCLUSION: With the benefit of a simpler implant procedure, long-term outcome of single lead VDD pacing is equivalent to DDD pacing in patients with AV block and preoperative normal sinus node function.
INTRODUCTION: Single lead VDD pacing has offered an alternative to DDD systems in patients with isolated AV block. Up to now, however, the relative performance of these pacemaker systems was not systematically compared. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred sixty patients who received either a VDD pacemaker (n = 180) or a DDD device (n = 180) with a bipolar atrial lead were investigated prospectively for a mean period of 30 +/- 13 months. Pacemaker function was analyzed by telemetry, Holter monitoring, and exercise ECG. Time of implantation and fluoroscopy was significantly lower with VDD devices (44.3 +/- 5.1 min vs 74.4 +/- 13.5 min and 4.6 +/- 2.5 min vs 10.3 +/- 5.6 min in DDD pacemakers, respectively). Intermittent atrial undersensing occurred in 23.3% of patients with a VDD pacemaker and in 9.4% with DDD devices (NS). The incidence of atrial tachyarrhythmias did not differ between the VDD (6.7%) and the DDD group (6.1%). Sinus node dysfunction developed in 1.9% of patients, but the vast majority (85.7%) of patients were asymptomatic. There was a tendency for a higher rate of operative revisions in the DDD group (6.1% vs 3.3% in VDD pacemakers, P = 0.15). Cumulative maintenance of AV-synchronized pacing mode was 94.9% in patients with VDD pacemakers and 92.1% with DDD devices (NS). CONCLUSION: With the benefit of a simpler implant procedure, long-term outcome of single lead VDD pacing is equivalent to DDD pacing in patients with AV block and preoperative normal sinus node function.
Authors: A Schuchert; C Müller; K Malinowski; K H Seidl; T Hilbel; T Meinertz; J Brachmann; C Stellbrink; H U Altenburg; B D Gonska; M Zehender; F Goss; G Hoffmann; W Karman; R Kolb; H G Olbrich; M Rachor; W Sondern; H Roth; B Uhlmann Journal: Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol Date: 2000-01