Key result
DDD pacemaker implantation was associated with a higher hazard of complications requiring surgical intervention compared to VVI (HR 3.9; 95% CI 1.4-11.3) and VDD pacing (HR 2.3; 95% CI 1.1-4.5).
Why the study?
Does single lead VDD pacing reduce complication rates compared to DDD and VVI pacing in patients with AV block?
Population
1,214 consecutive patients with pacemaker implantation for AV block between 1990 and 2001
Comparison
Single lead VDD pacemaker implantation vs DDD and VVI pacemaker implantation
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
64 +/- 31 months
Authors
Loading...
VDD may lower reintervention risk versus DDD in AV block; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Cohort (n=1,214)
Does single lead VDD pacing reduce complication rates compared to DDD and VVI pacing in patients with AV block?
Hazard Ratio: 3.9 (95% CI 1.4–11.3)
Single lead VDD pacing reduces operation time and complication rates compared to DDD pacing, achieving safety profiles comparable to VVI pacing in patients with AV block.
Wiegand et al. (2003) conducted a cohort in AV block (n=1,214). DDD pacemaker implantation vs. VVI pacing was evaluated on Complications requiring surgical interventions (HR 3.9, 95% CI 1.4-11.3). DDD pacemaker implantation was associated with a higher hazard of complications requiring surgical intervention compared to VVI (HR 3.9; 95% CI 1.4-11.3) and VDD pacing (HR 2.3; 95% CI 1.1-4.5).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: