Pacemaker selection: time for a rethinking of complex pacing systems?The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology.

Evidence from randomized trials indicates that the clinical benefits of dual-chamber (DDD) pacing are modest: (i) no significant differences exist between physiological pacing and single-chamber pacing in mortality and stroke; (ii) ventricular desynchronization resulting from chronic right-ventricular pacing in DDD mode, induces a significantly increased incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure hospitalizations; (iii) AF pacing prevention and therapy algorithms have shown a modest to minimal or absent efficacy; (iv) the widespread use of physiological pacemakers is not an economically attractive strategy. Thus, these data provide a reliable body of evidence on which to make more rationale clinical decisions for individual patients and policy decisions for health costs saving. The cheaper single-chamber AAI(R) or VVI(R) has been shown to satisfy both conditions in most cases of sinus node disease and AV block.