This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ovsyshcher, E. Articles by Furman, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ovsyshcher, E. Articles by Furman, S. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Heart Diseases Pacemakers and Implantable Defibrillators

(Circulation. 1998;97:2368-2370.)
© 1998 American Heart Association, Inc.

Current Perspectives

Dual-Chamber Pacing Is Superior to Ventricular Pacing

Fact or Controversy?

Eli Ovsyshcher, MD, PhD; David L. Hayes, MD; ; S. Furman, MD

From the Cardiology Division, Soroka Medical Center and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel (I.E.O.); Division of Cardiovascular Diseases and Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minn (D.L.H.); and Cardiology Division, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (S.F.).

Correspondence to Prof I. Eli Ovsyshcher, Cardiology, Soroka Medical Center, PO Box 151, Beer-Sheva, Israel.

Key Words: pacing • pacemakers • morbidity • mortality • survival

	Introduction

 
In the August 1, 1996, issue of Circulation, Connolly et al¹ presented their evaluation of current data concerning the use of DDD versus VVI pacing in patients with preserved sinus rhythm. They described a dilemma of DDD/VVI pacing in the following terms: "There are reasons to believe that dual-chamber pacing improves patient tolerance of pacing and reduces morbidity and mortality ... However, ... this technology is not widely used in most countries." In summary they noted, "There are theoretical reasons why dual-chamber pacing might reduce mortality ... Whether these theoretical expectations and physiological observations are indeed associated with a reduction in major clinical outcomes requires careful and prospective evaluation."

There is some concern that the Connolly article may lead the cardiology community to question what most pacing experts already believe to be the superiority of dual-chamber pacing.

There is no question that careful and prospective evaluation may be very useful in confirming the theoretical and physiological observations that many in the pacing community have come to accept as fact. There are several points to be made in support of this argument.

Ventricular pacing is the mode most frequently used worldwide.¹ This fact certainly cannot be construed as evidence of the superiority or equality of ventricular pacing or of atrial-based pacing (AAI, AAIR, VDD, DDD, DDDR). Most likely this situation reflects the limited selection of pacemakers available in some countries owing to financial constraints, as well as the limited experience of pacemaker implanters with atrial leads and atrial-based pacing. An . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				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]