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 .
A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND There are two approaches to the treatment of atrial fibrillation : one is cardioversion and treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs to maintain sinus rhythm , and the other is the use of rate-controlling drugs , allowing atrial fibrillation to persist . In both approaches , the use of anticoagulant drugs is recommended . METHODS We conducted a r and omized , multicenter comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke or death . The primary end point was overall mortality . RESULTS A total of 4060 patients ( mean [ + /-SD ] age , 69.7+/-9.0 years ) were enrolled in the study ; 70.8 percent had a history of hypertension , and 38.2 percent had coronary artery disease . Of the 3311 patients with echocardiograms , the left atrium was enlarged in 64.7 percent and left ventricular function was depressed in 26.0 percent . There were 356 deaths among the patients assigned to rhythm-control therapy and 310 deaths among those assigned to rate-control therapy ( mortality at five years , 23.8 percent and 21.3 percent , respectively ; hazard ratio , 1.15 [ 95 percent confidence interval , 0.99 to 1.34 ] ; P=0.08 ) . More patients in the rhythm-control group than in the rate-control group were hospitalized , and there were more adverse drug effects in the rhythm-control group as well . In both groups , the majority of strokes occurred after warfarin had been stopped or when the international normalized ratio was subtherapeutic . CONCLUSIONS Management of atrial fibrillation with the rhythm-control strategy offers no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy , and there are potential advantages , such as a lower risk of adverse drug effects , with the rate-control strategy . Anticoagulation should be continued in this group of high-risk patients
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 .