Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2004
Long-term clinical performance of AAI pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome: a comparison with dual-chamber pacing.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Masumoto Hiroshi, Ueda Yuichi, Kato Rinya, Usui Akihiko, Maseki Takashi, Takagi Yasushi, Usui Masato
Аннотация
AIMS: In this clinical study, we compared two groups of age-matched patients, AAI and DDD, to evaluate the clinical benefits of AAI pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and normal atrioventricular (AV) conduction.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-five patients with SSS implanted with AAI pacemakers were compared with 101 SSS patients implanted with DDD pacemakers. Mortality, chronic atrial fibrillation, lead survival rates, and reoperation rates were compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Eight AAI devices were switched to DDD due to high-degree (grade 2-3) AV block. The incidence of high-degree AV block was 1.104%/year, with a freedom rate of 88.6% at 10 years. There were no significant differences between the two groups in survival rates (87.8% in AAI vs. 93.4% in DDD at 10 years), freedom from atrial fibrillation (93.6% vs. 90.6%), or freedom from reoperation (71.3% vs. 76.3%). On the other hand, lead failure was twice as frequent in the DDD group than in the AAI group (relative risk=2.045, P=0.0382).
CONCLUSION: AAI pacing, a simple system using a single lead and single-chamber pacemaker, can achieve a clinical outcome similar to that of the DDD mode in patients with SSS and normal AV conduction.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-five patients with SSS implanted with AAI pacemakers were compared with 101 SSS patients implanted with DDD pacemakers. Mortality, chronic atrial fibrillation, lead survival rates, and reoperation rates were compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Eight AAI devices were switched to DDD due to high-degree (grade 2-3) AV block. The incidence of high-degree AV block was 1.104%/year, with a freedom rate of 88.6% at 10 years. There were no significant differences between the two groups in survival rates (87.8% in AAI vs. 93.4% in DDD at 10 years), freedom from atrial fibrillation (93.6% vs. 90.6%), or freedom from reoperation (71.3% vs. 76.3%). On the other hand, lead failure was twice as frequent in the DDD group than in the AAI group (relative risk=2.045, P=0.0382).
CONCLUSION: AAI pacing, a simple system using a single lead and single-chamber pacemaker, can achieve a clinical outcome similar to that of the DDD mode in patients with SSS and normal AV conduction.