No statistically significant difference was found between the pacing modes for mortality , heart failure , stroke , chronic atrial fibrillation or quality of life .
However , the risk of developing heart failure may vary with age and device .
The risk of heart failure may have an impact on the decision to use dual-chamber or single-chamber atrial pacemakers .
Results from an analysis based on age ( > 75 years or ≤ 75 years ) and risk of heart failure indicate that dual-chamber pacemakers dominate single-chamber atrial pacemakers ( i.e. are less expensive and more effective ) in older patients , whereas dual-chamber pacemakers are dominated by ( i.e. more expensive and less effective ) single-chamber atrial pacemakers in younger patients .
In patients with SSS without evidence of impaired AV conduction , dual-chamber pacemakers appear to be cost-effective compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers .
BACKGROUND Bradycardia [ resting heart rate below 60 beats per minute ( b.p.m . ) ]
can be caused by conditions affecting the natural pacemakers of the heart , such as sick sinus syndrome ( SSS ) and atrioventricular ( AV ) blocks .
People suffering from bradycardia may present with palpitations , exercise intolerance and fainting .
The only effective treatment for patients suffering from symptomatic bradycardia is implantation of a permanent pacemaker .
OBJECTIVE To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia in people with SSS and no evidence of AV block .
Ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing for sinus-node dysfunction.
BACKGROUND Dual-chamber ( atrioventricular ) and single-chamber ( ventricular ) pacing are alternative treatment approaches for sinus-node dysfunction that causes clinical ly significant bradycardia . However , it is unknown which type of pacing results in the better outcome . METHODS We r and omly assigned a total of 2010 patients with sinus-node dysfunction to dual-chamber pacing ( 1014 patients ) or ventricular pacing ( 996 patients ) and followed them for a median of 33.1 months . The primary end point was death from any cause or nonfatal stroke . Secondary end points included the composite of death , stroke , or hospitalization for heart failure ; atrial fibrillation ; heart-failure score ; the pacemaker syndrome ; and the quality of life . RESULTS The incidence of the primary end point did not differ significantly between the dual-chamber group ( 21.5 percent ) and the ventricular-paced group ( 23.0 percent , P=0.48 ) . In patients assigned to dual-chamber pacing , the risk of atrial fibrillation was lower ( hazard ratio , 0.79 ; 95 percent confidence interval , 0.66 to 0.94 ; P=0.008 ) , and heart-failure scores were better ( P<0.001 ) . The differences in the rates of hospitalization for heart failure and of death , stroke , or hospitalization for heart failure were not significant in unadjusted analyses but became marginally significant in adjusted analyses . Dual-chamber pacing result ed in a small but measurable increase in the quality of life , as compared with ventricular pacing . CONCLUSIONS In sinus-node dysfunction , dual-chamber pacing does not improve stroke-free survival , as compared with ventricular pacing . However , dual-chamber pacing reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation , reduces signs and symptoms of heart failure , and slightly improves the quality of life . Overall , dual-chamber pacing offers significant improvement as compared with ventricular pacing
No statistically significant difference was found between the pacing modes for mortality , heart failure , stroke , chronic atrial fibrillation or quality of life .
However , the risk of developing heart failure may vary with age and device .
The risk of heart failure may have an impact on the decision to use dual-chamber or single-chamber atrial pacemakers .
Results from an analysis based on age ( > 75 years or ≤ 75 years ) and risk of heart failure indicate that dual-chamber pacemakers dominate single-chamber atrial pacemakers ( i.e. are less expensive and more effective ) in older patients , whereas dual-chamber pacemakers are dominated by ( i.e. more expensive and less effective ) single-chamber atrial pacemakers in younger patients .
In patients with SSS without evidence of impaired AV conduction , dual-chamber pacemakers appear to be cost-effective compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers .
BACKGROUND Bradycardia [ resting heart rate below 60 beats per minute ( b.p.m . ) ]
can be caused by conditions affecting the natural pacemakers of the heart , such as sick sinus syndrome ( SSS ) and atrioventricular ( AV ) blocks .
People suffering from bradycardia may present with palpitations , exercise intolerance and fainting .
The only effective treatment for patients suffering from symptomatic bradycardia is implantation of a permanent pacemaker .
OBJECTIVE To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia in people with SSS and no evidence of AV block .