January 1, 2004Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Optimal Pacing for Symptomatic AV Block:
Key result
VDD pacing for symptomatic AV block was associated with significantly shorter implantation times (63 vs 97 minutes, P<0.0001) and similar complication rates (3% vs 6%, P=0.15) compared to DDD pacing.
Why the study?
Does VDD pacing reduce implant time and maintain long-term reliability compared to DDD pacing in patients with symptomatic AV block?
Population
192 patients with symptomatic AV block and intact sinus node function (112 in VDD group, 80 in DDD group)
Comparison
Single pass bipolar VDD pacing system vs DDD pacing system
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
17.7 +/- 10.0 months (in the VDD group)
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Overview
May shorten implantation without raising short-term complications in AV block; leaves open long-term reliability versus DDD.
Study Design
Type
Cohort (n=192)
Structured PICO
Does VDD pacing reduce implant time and maintain long-term reliability compared to DDD pacing in patients with symptomatic AV block?
P
Population
192 patients with symptomatic AV block and intact sinus node function who received either VDD or DDD pacing, followed for a mean of 17.7 months.
E
Exposure
Single pass bipolar VDD pacing system
C
Comparator
DDD pacing system
O
Outcome
Long-term reliability and complication ratessafety
Main Result
Absolute Event Rate: 3% vs 6%
p-value: p=0.15
VDD pacing offers a reliable, lower-cost alternative to DDD pacing with shorter implantation times for patients with symptomatic AV block and normal sinus node function.
Cite This Study
Huang et al. (2004) conducted a cohort in Symptomatic AV block (n=192). VDD pacing vs. DDD pacing was evaluated on Implant complications (p=0.15). VDD pacing for symptomatic AV block was associated with significantly shorter implantation times (63 vs 97 minutes, P<0.0001) and similar complication rates (3% vs 6%, P=0.15) compared to DDD pacing.