Skip Navigation


Europace Advance Access originally published online on October 19, 2007
Europace 2007 9(12):1185-1190; doi:10.1093/europace/eum231
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
9/12/1185    most recent
eum231v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kühne, M.
Right arrow Articles by Osswald, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kühne, M.
Right arrow Articles by Osswald, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2007. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

PACING

A randomized trial comparing two different approaches of pacemaker selection

M. Kühne {dagger}, B. Schaer* {dagger}, C. Kaufmann, N. Moulay, T. Cron, T. Cueni, P. Weiss, C. Schindler, C. Sticherling and S. Osswald

Division of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031 Basel, Switzerland

Aims: DDD-pacemakers are favoured in patients with sick-sinus-syndrome or AV-block. However, AAI-pacemakers for sick-sinus-syndrome or VDD-pacemakers for AV-block may provide similar benefit with lower costs. The aim is to show that a tailored approach (TA) with arrhythmia-specific pacemaker selection was equal to a standard approach (SA) regarding quality of life (QoL) at lower costs.

Methods and results: The study was prospective and randomized with QoL as primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were a combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, worsening heart failure or angina, atrial fibrillation (AF), stroke, these endpoints individually and costs. Of 198 patients (age 77 ± 10 years, 43% female, ejection fraction 54 ± 12%, follow-up 38 ± 15 months), 94 were randomized to SA and 104 to TA. Thirty-two patients (34%) died in the SA group vs. 25 (24%) in the TA (P= ns). QoL showed no differences in all dimensions. The combined secondary endpoint was reached more frequently with SA (51%) compared to TA (37%, P = 0.045). There was no difference regarding all single secondary endpoints. Hardware costs were reduced by 15% (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion: In long-term follow-up, a TA is equal to SA regarding the primary endpoint QoL and secondary endpoints as AF and mortality. Depending on the healthcare system, it may significantly reduce costs.

Key Words: Atrioventricular block, Sick-sinus-syndrome, Atrial-based pacing, Ventricular-based pacing

* Corresponding author. Tel: +41 61 328 62 22; fax: +41 61 265 45 98. E-mail address: bschaer{at}uhbs.ch

{dagger} The first two authors contributed equally to this paper.

Manuscript submitted 19 July 2007. Accepted after revision 24 September 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.