Optimal Pacing for Symptomatic AV Block: A Comparison of VDD and DDD Pacing

PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 19-23

  Huang, Max ^a   Krahn, Andrew D ^a,b   Yee, Raymond ^a   Klein, George J ^a   Skanes, Allan C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

AV block; Pacemaker; Treatment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; ELECTROCARDIOGRAM; FOLLOW UP; HEART PACING; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; PATIENT MONITORING; PHYSIOLOGY; RELIABILITY; SINUS NODE DISEASE;

AGED; CARDIAC PACING, ARTIFICIAL; FEMALE; HEART BLOCK; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PACEMAKER, ARTIFICIAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 1642561510     PISSN: 01478389     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2004.00380.x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Connolly SJ, Kerr C, Gent M, et al. Dual-chamber versus ventricular pacing. Critical appraisal of current data. Circulation 1996; 94:578-583.
2. Connolly SJ, Kerr CR, Gent M, et al. Effects of physiologic pacing versus ventricular pacing on the risk of stroke and death due to cardiovascular causes. Canadian Trial of Physiologic Pacing Investigators. N Engl J Med 2000 11; 342:1385-1391.
3. Sutton R, Bourgeois I. Cost benefit analysis of single and dual chamber pacing for sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block. An economic sensitivity analysis of the literature. Eur Heart J 1996; 17:574-582.
4. Wong GC, Hadjis T. Single chamber ventricular compared with dual chamber pacing: A review. Can J Cardiol 2002; 18:301-307.
5. Messenger JC, Greenberg PS, Warren J, et al. Atrial synchronous ventricular inhibited pacing (VDD): An underutilized mode of pacing. PACE 1983; 6:392-398.
6. Antonioli GE, Ansani L, Barbieri D, et al. Italian multicenter study on a single lead VDD pacing system using a narrow atrial dipole spacing. PACE 1992; 15:1890-1893.
7. Ansani L, Percoco GF, Guardigli G, et al. Long-term reliability of single lead atrial synchronous pacing systems using closely spaced atrial dipoles: Five-year experience. PACE 1994; 17:1865-1869.
8. Tse HF, Lau CP. The current status of single lead dual chamber sensing and pacing. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 1998; 2:255-267.
9. Wiegand UK, Bode F, Schneider R, et al. Atrial sensing and AV synchrony in single lead VDD pacemakers: A prospective comparison to DDD devices with bipolar atrial leads. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1999; 10:513-520.
10. Wiegand UK, Nowak B, Reisp U, et al. Implantation strategy of the atrial dipole impacts atrial sensing performance of single lead VDD pacemakers. PACE 2002; 25:316-323.
11. Bernstein AD, Parsonnet V. Survey of cardiac pacing and implanted defibrillator practice patterns in the United States in 1997. PACE 2001; 24:842-855.
12. Ector H, Rickards AF, Kappenberger L, et al. The World Survey of Cardiac Pacing and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Calendar year 1997-Europe. PACE 2001; 24:863-868.
13. Andersen HR, Nielsen JC, Thomsen PE, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients from a randomised trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing for sick-sinus syndrome. (comments) Lancet 1997 25; 350:1210-1216.
14. Andersen HR, Nielsen JC, Thomsen PE, et al. Atrioventricular conduction during long-term follow-up of patients with sick sinus syndrome. Circulation 1998 29; 98:1315-1321.
15. Connolly SJ, Kerr CR, Gent M, et al. Effects of physiologic pacing versus ventricular pacing on the risk of stroke and death due to cardiovascular causes. Canadian Trial of Physiologic Pacing Investigators. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1385-1391.