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 .
Routine follow-up after pacemaker implantation: frequency, pacemaker programming and professionals in charge.
AIMS To describe current evidence of the frequency , contents , and involved professionals of the routine follow-up visits in patients who have received a pacemaker ( PM ) .  METHODS AND RESULTS The multicentre FOLLOWPACE study prospect ively collected data during implantation and follow-up of 1526 patients who received a PM for the first time . A total of 4914 follow-up visits were studied . Mean follow-up was 394 days with a mean of 3.2 visits per patient . At all follow-up visits , the battery condition was tested in > 93 % , the stimulation threshold in > 91 % , and sensing in > 87 % . The pacemaker parameters as stimulation and sensing thresholds , lead impedances , and percentages of pacing remained stable over time , but these values did depend on the lead location , lead fixation , and pulse duration . The majority of  PM (re-)programming  was performed during implantation and /or shortly before hospital discharge ( 50 % ) .  PM re-programming  during follow-up was most frequently performed by the PM technician alone ( 95 % ) . CONCLUSION Crucial PM parameters are regularly checked . Re-programming of PM parameters declined during the first year after PM implantation . The majority of PM checks were carried out by the PM technician , indicating the major influence of the allied professional on the quality and safety of the pacing therapy
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 .