Key result
Single-chamber atrial pacing required an upgrade to dual-chamber or ventricular pacing in 38.2% of patients over a median 12.2-year follow-up, primarily due to the development of atrial fibrillation or atrioventricular block.
Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate long-term AAI pacing and to identify the timing and reasons for pacing mode change.
What are the long-term outcomes and reasons for pacing mode change in patients receiving initial AAI pacing for sinus node disease?
Observational (n=207)
No
What are the long-term outcomes and reasons for pacing mode change in patients receiving initial AAI pacing for sinus node disease?
While AAI pacing reliability decreases over time due to the development of atrial fibrillation and AV block, it may remain a viable option in selected patients due to lower risks of lead malfunction and venous occlusion compared to dual-chamber devices.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Limited long-term AAI stability in sick sinus syndrome; leaves open optimal initial pacing mode in prospective studies.
INTRODUCTION: Single atrial stimulation (AAI) has been commonly used for permanent pacing in sick sinus syndrome and significant bradycardia. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate long‑term AAI pacing and to identify timing and reasons for pacing mode change. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospectively, we included 207 patients (60% women) with initial AAI pacing, who were followed‑up for an average of 12 years. RESULTS: At the time of death or loss to follow‑up, 71 patients (34.3%) had unchanged AAI pacing mode. The reason for an upgrade of the pacing system was development of atrial fibrillation (AF) in 43 patients (20.78%) and atrioventricular block (AVB) in 34 patients (16.4%). The cumulative ratio for a pacemaker upgrade reoperation reached 2.77 per 100 patient‑years of the follow‑up. Cumulative ventricular pacing below 10% after an upgrade to dual‑chamber pacemaker was observed in 28.6% of the patients. Younger age at implant was the leading independent predictor of the change to dual‑chamber simulation (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.976-1.988; P = 0.001). There were 11 (5%) lead malfunctions that required reoperation. Subclavian vein occlusion was noted in 9 upgrade procedures (11%). One cardiac device-related infection was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of AAI pacing decreases with each year of observation due to development of AF and AVB. However, in the current era of effective AF treatment, the advantages of AAI pacemakers, such as lower incidence of lead malfunction, venous occlusion, and infection, as compared with dual-chamber pacemakers, may make AAI pacemakers a viable option.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kuniewicz et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Sinus node disease (n=207). Single-chamber atrial pacing (AAI) was evaluated on Pacing mode change (upgrade to dual-chamber or ventricular pacing). Single-chamber atrial pacing required an upgrade to dual-chamber or ventricular pacing in 38.2% of patients over a median 12.2-year follow-up, primarily due to the development of atrial fibrillation or atrioventricular block.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: