Key result
Atrial triggered ventricular (VAT) pacing increased resting cardiac output compared to ventricular inhibited (VVI) pacing (5.5 vs. 4.5 l/min, p<0.01) in patients with high-degree AV block.
Why the study?
Does atrial triggered ventricular (VAT) pacing improve cardiac performance compared to ventricular inhibited (VVI) pacing in patients with high-degree AV block?
Does atrial triggered ventricular (VAT) pacing improve cardiac performance compared to ventricular inhibited (VVI) pacing in patients with high-degree AV block?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.5% vs 4.5%
p-value: p=<0.01
Atrial triggered ventricular pacing provides significant hemodynamic advantages, including increased cardiac output and stroke volume, compared to ventricular inhibited pacing in patients with high-degree AV block.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May support VAT over VVI pacing for hemodynamics in AV block; hypothesis-generating, needs randomized outcome trials.
PEHRSSON et al. (1983) studied High-degree AV block (n=9). Atrial triggered ventricular (VAT) pacing vs. Ventricular inhibited (VVI) pacing was evaluated on Cardiac output at rest (p=<0.01). Atrial triggered ventricular (VAT) pacing increased resting cardiac output compared to ventricular inhibited (VVI) pacing (5.5 vs. 4.5 l/min, p<0.01) in patients with high-degree AV block.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: