Key result
Intrinsic AV conduction shows no quality of life or exercise benefit over permanent ventricular stimulation.
Why the study?
Does intrinsic atrioventricular conduction improve quality of life and exercise capacity compared to permanent ventricular stimulation in patients with dual chamber pacemakers and prolonged PQ interval?
Population
14 patients with dual chamber pacemakers and an intrinsic PQ interval >210 ms, mean age 76 +/- 6 years.
Comparison
Intrinsic atrioventricular conduction achieved… vs Permanent ventricular stimulation (PVS)
Design
RCT, randomized crossover, single blind
Authors
Loading...
Comparable QoL and exercise capacity with IAVC vs PVS; supports IAVC programming for longevity in select patients but leaves larger trials open.
RCT (n=14)
Single-blind
randomized crossover
Does intrinsic atrioventricular conduction improve quality of life and exercise capacity compared to permanent ventricular stimulation in patients with dual chamber pacemakers and prolonged PQ interval?
Absolute Event Rate: 28.3% vs 29.3%
p-value: p=0.68
In patients with dual chamber pacemakers and prolonged PQ interval, allowing intrinsic AV conduction does not significantly differ from permanent ventricular stimulation in terms of QoL or exercise capacity, suggesting pulse generators can be programmed to IAVC to extend battery longevity.
Dominik Maurer (2003) conducted an RCT in prolonged PQ interval and dual chamber pacemakers (n=14). Intrinsic atrioventricular conduction (IAVC) vs. Permanent ventricular stimulation (PVS) was evaluated on Quality of life (QoL) scores (p=0.68). Intrinsic atrioventricular conduction was comparable to permanent ventricular stimulation regarding quality of life scores (28.3 vs 29.3; P=0.68) and peak exercise capacity (5.4 vs 5.2 METs; P=0.35).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: