Key result
Dual chamber pacing (DDD) improved 10-year survival compared to VVI pacing in sick sinus syndrome (71% vs 57%) and atrioventricular block (61% vs 51%), and was cost-effective.
Why the study?
Does dual chamber pacing (DDD) improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness compared to single chamber pacing (VVI) in patients with sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block?
Population
Patients with sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block
Comparison
Dual chamber pacing (DDD) vs Single chamber pacing (VVI)
Design
Other
Follow-up
10 years (modeled)
Authors
Loading...
May support DDD over VVI in modeled SSS/AVB outcomes; leaves open randomized confirmation with modern devices.
Does dual chamber pacing (DDD) improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness compared to single chamber pacing (VVI) in patients with sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block?
Absolute Event Rate: 71% vs 57%
Dual chamber pacing is both clinically and cost-effective compared to single chamber pacing for sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block over a 10-year modeled period.
Sutton et al. (1996) studied Sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block. Dual chamber pacing (DDD) vs. Single chamber pacing (VVI) was evaluated on 10 year survival in sick sinus syndrome. Dual chamber pacing (DDD) improved 10-year survival compared to VVI pacing in sick sinus syndrome (71% vs 57%) and atrioventricular block (61% vs 51%), and was cost-effective.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: