| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Circulation. 1995;91:1063-1069.)
© 1995 American Heart Association, Inc.
Articles |
Permanent Pacemaker Selection and Subsequent Survival in Elderly Medicare Pacemaker Recipients
From the Division of Cardiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, and the University of Miami School of Medicine (G.A.L.), Miami, Fla; Cardiovascular Division (G.A.L.), Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the Department of Health Care Policy (C.L.P., S.T.N., B.M.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Correspondence to Gervasio A. Lamas, MD, Chief, Division of Cardiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 4300 Alton Rd, Miami Beach, FL 33140.
Background Dual-chamber pacemakers have been in use for more than 15 years. Although they may confer a physiological advantage over single-chamber ventricular pacemakers, they are more expensive and have a generally shorter service life than single-chamber devices. We carried out the present study to identify patient subgroups who were preferentially receiving greater or lesser proportions of dual-chamber devices and to determine whether the selection of different types of pacemakers was associated with differences in mortality.
Methods and Results We analyzed a 20% random national sample of all Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who underwent initial placement of a permanent pacemaker and were discharged in 1988, 1989, or 1990 (n=36 312). The minimum follow-up for vital status was 1 year. The relation of pacemaker type to patient and provider characteristics was determined using logistic regression analysis. The relation between pacemaker type and mortality was determined using the Cox proportional hazards method. The proportion of dual-chamber systems that were received increased from 27.2% in 1988 to 37.0% in 1990 (P<.001). Dual-chamber pacemaker recipients were younger (P<.001) than ventricular pacemaker recipients. Other independent correlates of dual-chamber pacemaker selection included male sex (odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals, 1.18 and 1.12 to 1.24, respectively), atrioventricular block (1.59 and 1.51 to 1.67), congestive heart failure (1.14 and 1.08 to 1.20), atrial fibrillation (0.36 and 0.34 to 0.39), and the presence of a major noncardiac diagnosis (0.86 and 0.83 to 0.89). Nonmedical predictors of dual-chamber pacemaker selection included Medicaid eligibility (0.78 and 0.71 to 0.86), implantation in the western United States (1.19 and 1.10 to 1.29), implantation by a rural provider (0.70 and 0.65 to 0.76), hospitalization in a 500-bed-or-larger hospital (1.20 and 1.13 to 1.28), hospitalization in a private hospital (1.19 and 1.10 to 1.28), or hospitalization in a hospital with a catheterization laboratory (1.47 and 1.38 to 1.56). Dual-chamber pacemaker selection was an independent predictor of survival at 1 year (0.82 and 0.77 to 0.87) and at 2 years (0.82 and 0.77 to 0.87) after controlling for potentially confounding patient-level and hospital-level characteristics.
Conclusions The present study describes important variations in the clinical practice of cardiac pacing, many of which are not based on clinical characteristics. Furthermore, the selection of a dual-chamber pacemaker is associated with increased survival. These results underscore the need for prospective, outcome-based clinical trials of pacemaker mode selection.
Key Words: pacing • mortality • pacemakers
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  P. R Roberts Follow up and optimisation of cardiac pacing Heart, September 1, 2005; 91(9): 1229 - 1234. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. D. Toff, A. J. Camm, J. D. Skehan, and the United Kingdom Pacing and Cardiovascular Event Single-Chamber versus Dual-Chamber Pacing for High-Grade Atrioventricular Block N. Engl. J. Med., July 14, 2005; 353(2): 145 - 155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. J. Greenspon, R. G. Hart, D. Dawson, A. S. Hellkamp, M. Silver, G. C. Flaker, E. Schron, L. Goldman, K. L. Lee, G. A. Lamas, et al. Predictors of stroke in patients paced for sick sinus syndrome J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 5, 2004; 43(9): 1617 - 1622. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. A. Lamas, K. A. Ellenbogen, and With the Assistance of Charles H. Hennekens, MD, D Evidence Base for Pacemaker Mode Selection: From Physiology to Randomized Trials Circulation, February 3, 2004; 109(4): 443 - 451. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Brunner, M. Olschewski, A. Geibel, C. Bode, and M. Zehender Long-term survival after pacemaker implantation: Prognostic importance of gender and baseline patient characteristics Eur. Heart J., January 1, 2004; 25(1): 88 - 95. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. A. Lamas, K. L. Lee, M. O. Sweeney, R. Silverman, A. Leon, R. Yee, R. A. Marinchak, G. Flaker, E. Schron, E. J. Orav, et al. Ventricular Pacing or Dual-Chamber Pacing for Sinus-Node Dysfunction N. Engl. J. Med., June 13, 2002; 346(24): 1854 - 1862. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. R. Pyatt, J. D. Somauroo, M. Jackson, A. D. Grayson, S. Osula, R. K. Aggarwal, R. G. Charles, and D. T. Connelly Long-term survival after permanent pacemaker implantation: analysis of predictors for increased mortality Europace, January 1, 2002; 4(2): 113 - 119. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Vassolo and G.A. Lamas Dual-chamber vs ventricular pacing in the elderly: quality of life and clinical outcomes Eur. Heart J., November 2, 1999; 20(22): 1607 - 1608. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Jahangir, W.-K. Shen, S. A. Neubauer, D. J. Ballard, S. C. Hammill, D. O. Hodge, C. M. Lohse, B. J. Gersh, and D. L. Hayes Relation between mode of pacing and long-term survival in the very elderly J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 1, 1999; 33(5): 1208 - 1216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Gianfranchi, M. Brignole, C. Menozzi, G. Lolli, and N. Bottoni Determinants of development of permanent atrial fibrillation and its treatment Europace, January 1, 1999; 1(1): 35 - 39. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. R. Hildick-Smith, J. T. Walsh, V. Parsonnet, M. Roelke, G. M. Gribbin, S. W. Parry, G. A. Lamas, L. Goldman, and C. Mangione Single-Chamber versus Dual-Chamber Pacemakers N. Engl. J. Med., August 27, 1998; 339(9): 630 - 632. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Ovsyshcher, D. L. Hayes, and S. Furman Dual-Chamber Pacing Is Superior to Ventricular Pacing : Fact or Controversy? Circulation, June 16, 1998; 97(23): 2368 - 2370. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. A. Lamas, E. J. Orav, B. S. Stambler, K. A. Ellenbogen, E. B. Sgarbossa, S. K. S. Huang, R. A. Marinchak, N.A. M. Estes, G. F. Mitchell, E. H. Lieberman, et al. Quality of Life and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients Treated with Ventricular Pacing as Compared with Dual-Chamber Pacing N. Engl. J. Med., April 16, 1998; 338(16): 1097 - 1104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D J R Hildick-Smith, M D Lowe, S A Newell, P M Schofield, L M Shapiro, D L Stone, A A Grace, and M C Petch Ventricular pacemaker upgrade: experience, complications and recommendations Heart, April 1, 1998; 79(4): 383 - 387. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Alboni, C. Menozzi, M. Brignole, N. Paparella, G. Gaggioli, G. Lolli, and R. Cappato Effects of Permanent Pacemaker and Oral Theophylline in Sick Sinus Syndrome : The THEOPACE Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial Circulation, July 1, 1997; 96(1): 260 - 266. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|