Key result
A dual chamber pacemaker programmed to DDD60 significantly reduced syncope or symptomatic events compared with DDI30 in patients with bifascicular block (HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.10-0.96; P=0.042).
Why the study?
Does permanent cardiac pacing programmed to DDD60 reduce syncope and symptomatic events in patients with bifascicular block and unexplained syncope compared to DDI30 backup pacing?
Population
101 patients with bifascicular block and syncope of unexplained origin implanted with a permanent pacemaker.
Comparison
Dual chamber pacemaker programmed to DDD mode… vs Backup pacing programmed to DDI mode with a…
Design
RCT, Randomized, Single-blinded
Follow-up
2 years
Authors
Loading...
Supports DDD60 over DDI30 programming in bifascicular block with syncope; confirms benefit of active dual-chamber pacing in this population.
RCT (n=101)
single-blinded
randomized
Yes
Does permanent cardiac pacing programmed to DDD60 reduce syncope and symptomatic events in patients with bifascicular block and unexplained syncope compared to DDI30 backup pacing?
Hazard Ratio: 0.32 (95% CI 0.1–0.96)
p-value: p=0.042
In patients with bifascicular block and unexplained syncope, permanent pacing programmed to DDD60 significantly reduces syncope and symptomatic events compared to backup DDI30 pacing.
Santini et al. (2013) conducted an RCT in Bifascicular block and syncope of undetermined origin (n=101). Dual chamber pacemaker programmed to DDD vs. Backup pacing at DDI with a lower rate of 30 ppm was evaluated on Syncope, symptomatic presyncopal episodes associated with device intervention, and symptomatic episodes associated with intermittent or permanent atrioventricular block (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10-0.96, p=0.042). A dual chamber pacemaker programmed to DDD60 significantly reduced syncope or symptomatic events compared with DDI30 in patients with bifascicular block (HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.10-0.96; P=0.042).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: