Quality of Life and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients Treated with Ventricular Pacing as Compared with Dual-Chamber Pacing

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 dualchamber 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 (P0.001), 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 dualchamber pacing as compared with ventricular pacing are observed principally in the subgroup of patients with sinus-node dysfunction. (N Engl J Med 1998;338:1097-104.

Brugada Syndrome - an under-Recognized Electrical Disease in Patients with Sudden Cardiac Death

In 1992, Brugada and Brugada described 8 patients with a history of aborted sudden death and a distinct ECG pattern of right bundle-branch block with ST segment elevation in leads V1-V3 and normal QT interval in the absence of any structural heart disease. It is called Brugada syndrome now and is believed to be responsible for 4-12% of all sudden deaths and around 20% of deaths in patients with structurally normal hearts. Although this syndrome is observed worldwide and the exact prevalence is unknown, it is more common in the Southeast Asian countries. Repeated syncope, ventricular fibrillation, and sudden cardiac death have been reported in patients with Brugada syndrome. The clinical presentation of Brugada syndrome is distinguished by a male predominance and the appearance of arrhythmic events at an average age of 40 years. The Brugada syndrome is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner with incomplete penetrance and an incidence ranging between 5 and 66 per 10 ,000. The surface ECG manifestations of the syndrome can transiently disappear, but can be unmasked by potent sodium channel blockers in some cases. Mutations of the cardiac sodium channel SCN5A have been detectable in <20% of patients with Brugada syndrome. Recent genetic studies have confirmed the genetic heterogeneity of the disorder. Antiarrhythmic drugs appear to be of little use in prolonging survival and in preventing recurrences of ventricular arrhythmias. To date, implantable cardioverter defibrillator remains the best therapy to prevent sudden death in these patients. Copyright (C) 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel

Predictors of Fluoroscopy Time and Estimated Radiation Exposure during Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation Procedures

The objective of this study was to identify factors that predict fluoroscopy duration and radiation exposure during catheter ablation procedures. The patient population included 859 patients who participated in the Atakr Ablation System clinical trial at 1 of 9 centers (398 male and 461 female patients, aged 36 +/-1 years). Each patient underwent catheter ablation of an accessory pathway, the atrioventricular junction, or atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia using standard techniques. The duration of fluoroscopy was 53 +/- 50 minutes. Factors identified as independent predictors of fluoroscopy duration included patient age and sex, the success or failure of the ablation procedure, and the institution at which the ablation was performed. Catheter ablation in adults required longer fluoroscopy exposure than it did in children. Men required longer durations of fluoroscopy exposure than did women. The mean estimated &quot; entrance&quot; radiation dose was 1.3+ /- 1.3 Sv. Tt-le dose needed to cause radiation skin injury was exceeded during 22% of procedures. The overall mean effective absorbed dose from catheter ablation procedures was 0.025 Sv for female patients and 0.017 Sv for male patients. This degree of radiation exposure would result in an estimated 1,400 excess fatal malignancies in female patients and 2,600 excess fatal malignancies in male patients per 1 million patients. (C) 1998 by Excerpta Medica , Inc

Quality of Life and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients Treated with Ventricular Pacing as Compared with Dual-Chamber Pacing

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. (C) 1998, Massachusetts Medical Society

Quality of life and clinical outcomes in elderly patients treated with ventricular pacing as compared with dual-chamber pacing. Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly Investigators.

BackgroundStandard 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultThe 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&lt;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.ConclusionThe implantation of a permanent pacemaker improves health-related quality of life. However, 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