Key result
Dual-chamber (DDD) pacing significantly improved quality of life and systolic ventricular function compared with VVIR pacing in elderly patients with complete heart block.
Why the study?
Does dual-chamber (DDD) pacing improve quality of life and functional parameters compared to single-chamber ventricular demand (VVIR) pacing in elderly patients with complete heart block?
Population
30 elderly patients with implanted pacemaker for complete atrioventricular block
Comparison
Dual-chamber (DDD) pacing maintained for 3 months vs Single-chamber ventricular demand pacing…
Design
RCT, randomized two-period crossover, double-blind
Follow-up
3 months per period
Authors
Loading...
Supports DDD over VVIR in elderly complete heart block; reinforces randomized evidence favoring dual-chamber devices.
RCT (n=30)
Double-blind
Randomized two-period crossover
Does dual-chamber (DDD) pacing improve quality of life and functional parameters compared to single-chamber ventricular demand (VVIR) pacing in elderly patients with complete heart block?
In elderly patients with complete heart block, DDD pacing improves quality of life and systolic ventricular function compared to VVIR pacing.
Ouali et al. (2009) conducted an RCT in Complete heart block (n=30). Dual-chamber (DDD) pacing vs. Single-chamber ventricular demand (VVIR) pacing was evaluated on Quality of life (SF-36), functional class, 6-minute walk test, and echocardiographic parameters. Dual-chamber (DDD) pacing significantly improved quality of life and systolic ventricular function compared with VVIR pacing in elderly patients with complete heart block.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: