Key result
Dual-chamber pacing improves quality of life over ventricular pacing only in sinus node dysfunction.
Why the study?
The necessity of increasingly sophisticated pacemaker components to simulate normal physiology and improve patient quality of life remains uncertain.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Questions necessity of dual-chamber over ventricular pacing in elderly bradycardia; leaves open need for larger outcome trials.
Cardiac pacemakers have become increasingly sophisticated during their half-century of clinical use. Each new component has been designed to simulate normal physiology more precisely. Is such complexity necessary? In this issue of the Journal, Lamas and colleagues1 report the results of the Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly (PASE) trial, a comparison of sophisticated dual-chamber pacing with less complex ventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia. The investigators conclude that dual-chamber pacing improved the quality of life, but the benefit was seen only in the subgroup with sinus-node dysfunction.On the surface, it seems obvious that dual-chamber pacing would be superior to . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mason et al. (1998) conducted an editorial in Bradycardia. Dual-chamber pacing vs. Ventricular pacing was evaluated on Quality of life. Dual-chamber pacing improved quality of life compared to ventricular pacing, but the benefit was seen only in the subgroup of patients with sinus-node dysfunction.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: