Single-chamber vs Dual-chamber ICDs: Do We Need Physiologic Pacing?
Author Information
Author(s): Marco Budeus, Thomas Buck, Heinrich Wieneke, Raimund Erbel, Stefan Sack
Primary Institution: University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Hypothesis
Does DDD(R) pacing improve subjective and objective parameters compared to VVI(R) pacing in patients requiring an upgrade from single to dual-chamber ICD?
Conclusion
DDD(R) pacing shows significant improvements in heart function and quality of life compared to VVI(R) pacing after 12 months.
Supporting Evidence
- Patients showed significant improvement in NYHA classification after 12 months with DDD(R) pacing.
- BNP levels decreased significantly with DDD(R) pacing compared to VVI(R) pacing.
- The 6-minute walk test results improved significantly after 12 months of DDD(R) pacing.
- Left ventricular ejection fraction improved significantly with DDD(R) pacing.
- Ventricular pacing was significantly reduced after 12 months with DDD(R) pacing.
Takeaway
This study found that using a dual-chamber ICD with better pacing helps patients walk further and feel better than using a single-chamber ICD.
Methodology
Retrospective analysis of 12 patients upgraded from single to dual-chamber ICD, comparing subjective and objective parameters over 12 months.
Potential Biases
Potential bias due to lack of complete blinding during echocardiographic evaluations.
Limitations
Small sample size and short-term observational nature limit the generalizability of the results.
Participant Demographics
12 patients, average age 60.2 years, 10 males and 2 females.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.0001
Confidence Interval
95% Cl 4.26-122.05
Statistical Significance
p<0.0001
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website