Key result
DDD pacing mode did not differ from dual sensor VVIR pacing mode regarding quality-of-life and cardiopulmonary performance in CAVB patients.
Why the study?
Does DDD pacing improve quality-of-life and cardiopulmonary performance compared to dual sensor VVIR pacing in patients with complete AV block?
RCT (n=18)
Single-blind
Randomized crossover
Does DDD pacing improve quality-of-life and cardiopulmonary performance compared to dual sensor VVIR pacing in patients with complete AV block?
In patients with complete AV block, DDD pacing and dual sensor VVIR pacing provided similar quality of life and cardiopulmonary performance over a 1-month period.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No QoL or performance advantage for DDD over dual-sensor VVIR in CAVB; reinforces VVIR as a comparable short-term option.
The aim of this study was to compare DDD and dual sensor VVIR (activity and QT) pacing modes in complete AV block (CAVB). Eighteen patients (14 men and 4 women, aged 70 +/- 6.5 years) implanted with a dual chamber, dual sensor pacemaker for CAVB with normal sinus node chronotropic function were studied. A quality-of-life and cardiovascular symptom questionnaire, and a treadmill exercise test were completed after a period of VVIR and a period of DDD pacing, each lasting 1 month. Overall quality-of-life and cardiovascular symptoms did not significantly differ, though three patients felt discomfort during VVIR mode. There was no significant statistical difference in cardiopulmonary parameters. DDD and VVIR modes yielded the following respective data: maximum heart rate = 105.7 +/- 21.8 beats/minute versus 107.6 +/- 21.6 beats/minute (NS); maximum workload = 60 +/- 33.4 W versus 59.3 +/- 37.8 W (NS); treadmill duration = 10.1 +/- 3.8 minute versus 10.1 +/- 3.6 minute (NS); oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold = 14.6 +/- 4.1 mL/kg per minute versus 14.9 +/- 4.6 mL/kg per minute (NS); maximum minute ventilation = 49.6 +/- 9L/min versus 46 +/- 12 L/min (NS); and respiratory quotient = 1.08 +/- 0.15 versus 1.08 +/- 0.13 (NS). We conclude that, during a 1-month follow-up period, no difference was found between DDD and dual sensor VVIR (QT and activity) pacing modes in CAVB patients with regard to quality-of-life and cardiopulmonary performance, though a trend toward an increased sense of well being was noted with the DDD mode.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deharo et al. (1996) conducted an RCT in Complete AV block (CAVB) (n=18). DDD pacing mode vs. Dual sensor VVIR (activity and QT) pacing mode was evaluated on Quality-of-life, cardiovascular symptoms, and cardiopulmonary performance (p=NS). DDD pacing mode did not differ from dual sensor VVIR pacing mode regarding quality-of-life and cardiopulmonary performance in CAVB patients.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: