Key result
Recent clinical trials testing different pacing modes in patients aged 75 years and older suggest new algorithms for management, with pacing for heart failure and ICDs still under investigation.
Why the study?
Does dual-chamber pacing mode improve outcomes compared to ventricular pacing mode in patients aged 75 years and older?
Does dual-chamber pacing mode improve outcomes compared to ventricular pacing mode in patients aged 75 years and older?
This review discusses the evolving evidence and management algorithms for choosing between ventricular and dual-chamber pacing modes in patients aged 75 years and older.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Leaves pacing mode selection open in adults ≥75 years; further RCTs needed before practice change.
Half of all pacemakers implanted in the United States are for patients aged 75 years and older. The expectations and needs of an older group are different from patients who are younger, yet it is only recently that different pacing mode benefits for elderly persons have been tested in clinical trials. Some of the results have been surprising and suggest new algorithms for management. Other issues are still on the threshold of investigation. These include pacing for heart failure in elderly patients and pacing combined with cardioverter-defibrillator implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vlietstra et al. (2005) conducted a review in Pacemaker implantation. Ventricular Pacing Mode vs. Dual-Chamber Pacing Mode was evaluated. Recent clinical trials testing different pacing modes in patients aged 75 years and older suggest new algorithms for management, with pacing for heart failure and ICDs still under investigation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: