Key result
Dual chamber pacing (DDD) showed no significant difference in walking distance or quality of life compared to single chamber pacing (VVIR).
Why the study?
Does dual chamber pacing (DDD) improve quality of life and effort tolerance compared to single chamber pacing (VVIR) in patients with complete heart block?
RCT (n=42)
Double-blind
Crossover
No
Does dual chamber pacing (DDD) improve quality of life and effort tolerance compared to single chamber pacing (VVIR) in patients with complete heart block?
In patients with complete heart block, there is no short-term difference in quality of life or functional capacity between dual-chamber (DDD) and single-chamber (VVIR) pacing modes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No short-term QoL or functional benefit with DDD versus VVIR; confirms equivalence and supports VVIR as adequate in complete heart block.
A total of 42 patients were studied for primary outcomes of quality of life and 6MWD between VVIR and DDD modes. At end of 2 months after device implantation, randomization was done and the device was programmed to VVIR or DDD modes. At the end of 2 months in this mode QOL and functional was assessed and the patient was switched to other mode. The same protocol was followed at the end of 2 months. We found no difference in functional capacity and quality of life between the two pacing modes. None of the patients developed pacemaker syndrome and there was no preference for any of the modes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chanthanamuthu et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Complete heart block (n=42). Dual chamber pacing (DDD mode) vs. Single chamber pacing (VVIR mode) was evaluated on 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) in meters (p=0.07). Dual chamber pacing (DDD) showed no significant difference in walking distance or quality of life compared to single chamber pacing (VVIR).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: