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 353:145-155 July 14, 2005 Number 2
NextNext

Single-Chamber versus Dual-Chamber Pacing for High-Grade Atrioventricular Block
William D. Toff, M.D., A. John Camm, M.D., J. Douglas Skehan, M.B., B.S., for the United Kingdom Pacing and Cardiovascular Events (UKPACE) Trial Investigators

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF
-PDA Full Text
-PowerPoint Slide Set

Commentary
-Editorial
 by Ellenbogen, K. A.
-Letters

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

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background In the treatment of atrioventricular block, dual-chamber cardiac pacing is thought to confer a clinical benefit as compared with single-chamber ventricular pacing, but the supporting evidence is mainly from retrospective studies. Uncertainty persists regarding the true benefits of dual-chamber pacing, particularly in the elderly, in whom it is used less often than in younger patients.

Methods In a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group trial, 2021 patients 70 years of age or older who were undergoing their first pacemaker implant for high-grade atrioventricular block were randomly assigned to receive a single-chamber ventricular pacemaker (1009 patients) or a dual-chamber pacemaker (1012 patients). In the single-chamber group, patients were randomly assigned to receive either fixed-rate pacing (504 patients) or rate-adaptive pacing (505 patients). The primary outcome was death from all causes. Secondary outcomes included atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or other thromboembolism.

Results The median follow-up period was 4.6 years for mortality and 3 years for other cardiovascular events. The mean annual mortality rate was 7.2 percent in the single-chamber group and 7.4 percent in the dual-chamber group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.11). We found no significant differences between the group with single-chamber pacing and that with dual-chamber pacing in the rates of atrial fibrillation, heart failure, or a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or other thromboembolism.

Conclusions In elderly patients with high-grade atrioventricular block, the pacing mode does not influence the rate of death from all causes during the first five years or the incidence of cardiovascular events during the first three years after implantation of a pacemaker.


Source Information

From the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester (W.D.T.), and the Department of Cardiology, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Glenfield Hospital (W.D.T., J.D.S.), Leicester, United Kingdom; and the Division of Cardiac and Vascular Sciences, St George's University of London, London (A.J.C.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Toff at the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Wing, Glenfield Hospital, Groby Rd., Leicester LE3 9QP, United Kingdom, or at w.toff{at}le.ac.uk.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Pacing for Atrioventricular Block
Amato J. L. Jr., Fauchier L., Babuty D., Heist E. K., Harthorne J. W., Singh J. P., Toff W. D., Camm A. J., Skehan J. D., the UKPACE Trial Investigators
Extract | Full Text | PDF  
N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1742-1744, Oct 20, 2005. 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.