Literature DB >> 12932590

A randomized comparison of atrial and dual-chamber pacing in 177 consecutive patients with sick sinus syndrome: echocardiographic and clinical outcome.

Jens C Nielsen1, Lene Kristensen, Henning R Andersen, Peter T Mortensen, Ole L Pedersen, Anders K Pedersen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: A randomized trial was done to compare single-chamber atrial (AAI) and dual-chamber (DDD) pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome (SSS). Primary end points were changes in left atrial (LA) size and left ventricular (LV) size and function as measured by M-mode echocardiography.
BACKGROUND: In patients with SSS and normal atrioventricular conduction, it is still not clear whether the optimal pacing mode is AAI or DDD pacing.
METHODS: A total of 177 consecutive patients (mean age 74 +/- 9 years, 73 men) were randomized to treatment with one of three rate-adaptive (R) pacemakers: AAIR (n = 54), DDDR with a short atrioventricular delay (n = 60) (DDDR-s), or DDDR with a fixed long atrioventricular delay (n = 63) (DDDR-l). Before pacemaker implantation and at each follow-up, M-mode echocardiography was done to measure LA and LV diameters. Left ventricular fractional shortening (LVFS) was calculated. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis.
RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 2.9 +/- 1.1 years. In the AAIR group, no significant changes were observed in LA or LV diameters or LVFS from baseline to last follow-up. In both DDDR groups, LA diameter increased significantly (p < 0.05), and in the DDDR-s group, LVFS decreased significantly (p < 0.01). Atrial fibrillation was significantly less common in the AAIR group, 7.4% versus 23.3% in the DDDR-s group versus 17.5% in the DDDR-l group (p = 0.03, log-rank test). Mortality, thromboembolism, and congestive heart failure did not differ between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: During a mean follow-up of 2.9 +/- 1.1 years, DDDR pacing causes increased LA diameter, and DDDR pacing with a short atrioventricular delay also causes decreased LVFS. No changes occur in LA or LV diameters or LVFS during AAIR pacing. Atrial fibrillation is significantly less common during AAIR pacing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12932590     DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(03)00757-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  80 in total

1.  Physiologic pacing: where pacing mode selection reflects the indication.

Authors:  J S Healey; E Crystal; S J Connolly
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 5.994

2.  Left ventricular pacing should be considered when biventricular pacing worsens heart failure: left ventricular pacing instead of biventricular pacing?

Authors:  Syed Y Ahsan; Matthew W Fittall; Aerakondal B Gopalamurugan; James W McCready; Laurence Nunn; Anthony W Chow
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 1.900

3.  Interventricular septal or standard apical pacing in pacing dependent patients: still a dilemma?

Authors:  Roxana Cristina Rimbas Sisu; Mircea Cinteza; Dragos Vinereanu
Journal:  Maedica (Buchar)       Date:  2010-07

4.  Morphological analysis of sinus and retrograde atrial waves detected through a permanent pacemaker atrial lead.

Authors:  Sami Pakarinen; Anne-Mari Vitikainen; Giorgio Corbucci; Lauri Toivonen
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 1.900

5.  Permanent direct his bundle pacing does not induce ventricular dyssynchrony unlike conventional right ventricular apical pacing. An intrapatient acute comparison study.

Authors:  Domenico Catanzariti; Massimiliano Maines; Claudio Cemin; Gianpaolo Broso; Tiziana Marotta; Giuseppe Vergara
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2006-11-18       Impact factor: 1.900

6.  Impact of asynchronous ventricular activation on pro-inflammatory cytokines and oxidative stress in paced patients.

Authors:  M E Marketou; E N Simantirakis; D Nikitovic; S I Chrysostomakis; E A Zacharis; P E Vardas
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 7.  Atrial fibrillation: profit from cardiac pacing?

Authors:  A Yang; B Lüderitz; T Lewalter
Journal:  Z Kardiol       Date:  2005-03

Review 8.  Controversies in pacing: indications and programming.

Authors:  Anne M Gillis; Rik Willems
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.931

9.  Atrial pacing, the forgotten pacing mode.

Authors:  M El Gamal
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.380

10.  The usefulness of minimal ventricular pacing and preventive AF algorithms in the treatment of PAF: the 'MinVPace' study.

Authors:  Rick A Veasey; Anita Arya; Nick Freemantle; John Silberbauer; Nikhil R Patel; Guy W Lloyd; A Neil Sulke
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2010-01-16       Impact factor: 1.900

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.