FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 339:630-632 August 27, 1998 Number 9 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article by Lamas, G. A.

To the Editor: In their report on the Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly (PASE) trial, Lamas et al. (April 16 issue)¹ compare single-chamber pacing (VVIR mode [ventricular pacing, ventricular sensing, inhibition response, rate-adaptive]) and dual-chamber pacing (DDDR mode [atrial and ventricular pacing, atrial and ventricular sensing, dual response, rate-adaptive]) in the elderly and conclude that there is no specific quality-of-life benefit for patients undergoing dual-chamber pacing as compared with those undergoing single-chamber pacing (a conclusion that the accompanying editorial notes will surprise most experts²). This conclusion is reached despite the fact that 26 percent of the patients assigned to . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.