Key result
Single lead VDD pacing provided nearly permanent atrial sensing at 12 months in patients with both impaired (99.3%) and normal (99.0%) left ventricular function.
Why the study?
Does single lead VDD pacing provide adequate atrial sensing and P wave amplitude in patients with impaired left ventricular function compared to those with normal left ventricular function?
Cohort (n=75)
Does single lead VDD pacing provide adequate atrial sensing and P wave amplitude in patients with impaired left ventricular function compared to those with normal left ventricular function?
Absolute Event Rate: 99.3% vs 99%
Single lead VDD pacing provides reliable long-term AV synchronous pacing with excellent atrial sensing regardless of baseline left ventricular function.
Atrial synchronous ventricular pacing seems to be the best pacing mode for patients with advanced AV block and impaired LV function. The long-term follow-up of single lead VDD pacing was studied in 33 patients with impaired LV function and compared to 42 patients with normal LV function. All patients received the same VDD lead and VDDR pacemaker. The lead model with 13-cm AV spacing between the atrial and ventricular electrode was implanted in 89% of the patients. Follow-ups were 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after implantation. The percentage of atrial sensing and the P wave amplitude were determined at each follow-up. Minimal P wave amplitude at implantation was 2.0 +/- 1.4 mV in patients with impaired and 1.7 +/- 0.9 mV with normal LV function (not significant). At the 12-month follow-up, 33 patients with normal and 23 patients with depressed LV function remained paced in the VDD mode. The remaining patients died in five (impaired LV function) and seven cases (normal LV function) or their pacemakers were programmed to the VVI/VVIR pacing mode in four (impaired LV function) and three cases (normal LV function). P wave amplitude did not differ in the two groups (e.g., at month 12: impaired: 1.17 +/- 0.42 mV; normal: 1.09 +/- 0.49 mV). The atrial sensitivity was programmed in most patients to sensitive settings with no differences between the two groups (e.g., at month 12: impaired: 0.13 +/- 0.06 mV; normal: 0.13 +/- 0.05 mV). The diagnostic counters indicated nearly permanent atrial sensing (e.g., at month 12: impaired: 99.3 +/- 2.2%; normal: 99.0 +/- 1.0 mV). In conclusions, single lead VDD pacing restored AV synchronous ventricular pacing in patients with normal and with impaired LV function indicating that it could be an alternative to DDD pacemakers, but not to dual-chamber pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schuchert et al. (2000) conducted a cohort in Advanced AV block (n=75). Single lead VDD pacing in impaired left ventricular function vs. Single lead VDD pacing in normal left ventricular function was evaluated on Percentage of atrial sensing at 12 months. Single lead VDD pacing provided nearly permanent atrial sensing at 12 months in patients with both impaired (99.3%) and normal (99.0%) left ventricular function.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: