The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Original Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 342:1385-1391 May 11, 2000 Number 19
NextNext

Effects of Physiologic Pacing versus Ventricular Pacing on the Risk of Stroke and Death Due to Cardiovascular Causes
Stuart J. Connolly, M.D., Charles R. Kerr, M.D., Michael Gent, D.Sc., Robin S. Roberts, M.Tech., Salim Yusuf, M.D., Anne M. Gillis, M.D., Magdi H. Sami, M.D., Mario Talajic, M.D., Anthony S.L. Tang, M.D., George J. Klein, M.D., Ching Lau, M.D., David M. Newman, M.D., for The Canadian Trial of Physiologic Pacing Investigators

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF

Commentary
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background Evidence suggests that physiologic pacing (dual-chamber or atrial) may be superior to single-chamber (ventricular) pacing because it is associated with lower risks of atrial fibrillation, stroke, and death. These benefits have not been evaluated in a large, randomized, controlled trial.

Methods At 32 Canadian centers, patients without chronic atrial fibrillation who were scheduled for a first implantation of a pacemaker to treat symptomatic bradycardia were eligible for enrollment. We randomly assigned patients to receive either a ventricular pacemaker or a physiologic pacemaker and followed them for an average of three years. The primary outcome was stroke or death due to cardiovascular causes. Secondary outcomes were death from any cause, atrial fibrillation, and hospitalization for heart failure.

Results A total of 1474 patients were randomly assigned to receive a ventricular pacemaker and 1094 to receive a physiologic pacemaker. The annual rate of stroke or death due to cardiovascular causes was 5.5 percent with ventricular pacing, as compared with 4.9 percent with physiologic pacing (reduction in relative risk, 9.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, –10.5 to 25.7 percent [the negative value indicates an increase in risk]; P=0.33). The annual rate of atrial fibrillation was significantly lower among the patients in the physiologic-pacing group (5.3 percent) than among those in the ventricular-pacing group (6.6 percent), for a reduction in relative risk of 18.0 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 0.3 to 32.6 percent; P=0.05). The effect on the rate of atrial fibrillation was not apparent until two years after implantation. The observed annual rates of death from all causes and of hospitalization for heart failure were lower among the patients with a physiologic pacemaker than among those with a ventricular pacemaker, but not significantly so (annual rates of death, 6.6 percent with ventricular pacing and 6.3 percent with physiologic pacing; annual rates of hospitalization for heart failure, 3.5 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively). There were significantly more perioperative complications with physiologic pacing than with ventricular pacing (9.0 percent vs. 3.8 percent, P<0.001).

Conclusions Physiologic pacing provides little benefit over ventricular pacing for the prevention of stroke or death due to cardiovascular causes.


Source Information

From the Departments of Medicine (S.J.C., S.Y.) and Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (M.G., R.S.R.), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; the Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (C.R.K.); the Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta. (A.M.G.); the Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal (M.H.S.); the Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal, Montreal (M.T.); the Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont. (A.S.L.T.); the Department of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London (G.J.K.); and the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto (C.L., D.M.N.) — all in Canada.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Connolly at Hamilton Health Sciences, General Site, McMaster Clinic Rm. 501, 237 Barton St. E., Hamilton, ON L8L 2X2, Canada, or at connostu{at}hhsc.ca.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Effects of Physiologic Pacing versus Ventricular Pacing
Harthorne J. W., Shibolet O., Amit G., Connolly S. J., Gent M., Kerr C. R., The Canadian Trial of Physiologic Pacing Investigators
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 2000; 343:1417-1418, Nov 9, 2000. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.