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 338:1097-1104 April 16, 1998 Number 16
NextNext

Quality of Life and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients Treated with Ventricular Pacing as Compared with Dual-Chamber Pacing
Gervasio A. Lamas, M.D., E. John Orav, Ph.D., Bruce S. Stambler, M.D., Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, M.D., Elena B. Sgarbossa, M.D., Shoei K. Stephen Huang, M.D., Roger A. Marinchak, M.D., N.A. Mark Estes, M.D., Gary F. Mitchell, M.D., Eric H. Lieberman, M.D., Carol M. Mangione, M.D., Lee Goldman, M.D., John J. Griffin, James D. Maloney, Carlos Rizo-Patrón, Ferdinand J. Venditti, Bruce L. Wilkoff, for The Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly 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 Standard clinical practice permits the use of either single-chamber ventricular pacemakers or dual-chamber pacemakers for most patients who require cardiac pacing. Ventricular pacemakers are less expensive, but dual-chamber pacemakers are believed to be more physiologic. However, it is not known whether either type of pacemaker results in superior clinical outcomes.

Methods The Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly study was a 30-month, single-blind, randomized, controlled comparison of ventricular pacing and dual-chamber pacing in 407 patients 65 years of age or older in 29 centers. Patients received a dual-chamber pacemaker that had been randomly programmed to either ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing. The primary end point was health-related quality of life as measured by the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey.

Results The average age of the patients was 76 years (range, 65 to 96), and 60 percent were men. Quality of life improved significantly after pacemaker implantation (P<0.001), but there were no differences between the two pacing modes in either the quality of life or prespecified clinical outcomes (including cardiovascular events or death). However, 53 patients assigned to ventricular pacing (26 percent) were crossed over to dual-chamber pacing because of symptoms related to the pacemaker syndrome. Patients with sinus-node dysfunction, but not those with atrioventricular block, had moderately better quality of life and cardiovascular functional status with dual-chamber pacing than with ventricular pacing. Trends of borderline statistical significance in clinical end points favoring dual-chamber pacing were observed in patients with sinus-node dysfunction, but not in those with atrioventricular block.

Conclusions The implantation of a permanent pacemaker improves health-related quality of life. The quality-of-life benefits associated with dual-chamber pacing as compared with ventricular pacing are observed principally in the subgroup of patients with sinus-node dysfunction.


Source Information

From the Division of Cardiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, and the University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami Beach, Fla. (G.A.L., E.H.L.); the Section of Clinical Epidemiology (E.J.O.) and the Cardiovascular Division (G.F.M.), Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston; the McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center (B.S.S.) and the Medical College of Virginia Hospital (K.A.E.), Richmond; the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland (E.B.S.); National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan (S.K.S.H.); Lankenau Hospital, Wynnewood, Pa. (R.A.M.); Tufts–New England Medical Center, Boston (N.A.M.E.); the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles (C.M.M.); and the University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco (L.G.). Other authors were John J. Griffin, M.D. (Virginia Beach General Hospital, Virginia Beach, Va.), James D. Maloney, M.D., and Carlos Rizo-Patrón, M.D. (Baylor Medical Center, Dallas), Ferdinand J. Venditti, M.D. (Lahey Clinic Foundation, Burlington, Mass.), and Bruce L. Wilkoff, M.D. (Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Lamas at the Division of Cardiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 4300 Alton Rd., Miami Beach, FL 33140.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Single-Chamber versus Dual-Chamber Pacemakers
Hildick-Smith D. J. R., Walsh J. T., Parsonnet V., Roelke M., Gribbin G. M., Parry S. W., Lamas G. A., Goldman L., Mangione C.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 1998; 339:630-632, Aug 27, 1998. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



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.