PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 1, 1995Heart24 citationsOpen Access

Comparison of dual chamber and ventricular rate responsive pacing in patients over 75 with complete heart block.

MHM. R. HargreavesKCKeith M. ChannonTCT Cripps

Key Result

Dual chamber (DDD) pacing significantly improved mean total symptom scores compared to VVIR pacing (3.5 vs 6.1; P<0.01) in elderly patients with complete heart block.

Study Design

Type

RCT (n=20)

Blinding

Double-blind

Randomization

Crossover

Multicenter

No

Structured PICO

Does DDD pacing improve symptoms and exercise tolerance compared to VVIR pacing in elderly patients with complete heart block?

P
Population
20 elderly patients (mean age 80.5 years) with high grade atrioventricular block and sinus rhythm. Excluded: pre-existing risk factors for pacemaker syndrome and chronotropic incompetence.
I
Intervention
Dual chamber universal (DDD) pacing for two weeks
C
Comparator
Ventricular rate response (VVIR) pacing for two weeks (crossover design)
O
Outcome
Patient preference, symptom scores, daily activity exercises, and perceived level of exercise (Borg score)patient reported

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 3.5% vs 6.1%

p-value: p=<0.01

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare symptoms and exercise tolerance during dual chamber universal (DDD) and ventricular rate response (VVIR) pacing in elderly (> or = 75) patients. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind, crossover study. SETTING: Regional cardiac department. PATIENTS: Twenty elderly patients (mean age 80.5 (1) years) with high grade atrioventricular block and sinus rhythm. Patients with pre-existing risk factors for the pacemaker syndrome and chronotropic incompetence were excluded. INTERVENTION: After four weeks of VVI pacing following pacemaker implantation, patients underwent consecutive two week periods of VVIR and DDD pacing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient preference, symptom scores, "daily activity exercises," and perceived level of exercise (Borg score). RESULTS: Eleven patients preferred DDD mode to either VVI or VVIR mode. Mean (SE) total symptom scores during VVI, VVIR, and DDD pacing were 5.9 (1.1), 6.1 (1.0), and 3.5 (0.9) respectively (P < 0.01). The corresponding mean (SE) pacemaker syndrome symptom scores were 4.8 (0.7), 5.2 (0.8), and 2.9 (0.8) (P < 0.05). Symptom scores during VVI and VVIR pacing were not significantly different. Exercise performance and Borg scores were significantly worse during VVI pacing compared with VVIR or DDD pacing but did not significantly differ between VVIR and DDD modes. CONCLUSIONS: In active elderly patients with complete heart block both DDD and VVIR pacing are associated with improved exercise performance compared with fixed rate VVI pacing. The convenience and reduced cost of VVIR systems, however, may be offset by a higher incidence of the pacemaker syndrome. In elderly patients with complete heart block VVIR pacing results in suboptimal symptomatic benefit and should not be used instead of DDD pacing.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hargreaves et al. (1995) conducted an RCT in Complete heart block (n=20). Dual chamber universal (DDD) pacing vs. Ventricular rate response (VVIR) pacing and fixed rate VVI pacing was evaluated on Patient preference, symptom scores, daily activity exercises, and perceived level of exercise (Borg score) (p=<0.01). Dual chamber (DDD) pacing significantly improved mean total symptom scores compared to VVIR pacing (3.5 vs 6.1; P<0.01) in elderly patients with complete heart block.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a15f74532de3075b8524ef4https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.74.4.397
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper