How Many ICD Recipients Really Need Dual-Chamber Pacing?

  • A. Proclemer
  • D. Facchin
  • M. Trentin
Conference paper


Dual-chamber pacing showed a mortality decrease in comparison to ventricular pacing, and a lower incidence of atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic complications, especially in patients with congestive heart failure [1, 2]. The dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (DDD-ICD) became available in July 1997; this device enables atrioventricular pacing and sensing in case of bradycardia, as well as sensing of atrial events in case of atrial tachyarrhythmias. The proportion of patients in whom DDD-ICD is indicated is still a subject of debate, and so far no prospective data about the clinical indications and possible advantages of the DDD-ICD in comparison to the single-chamber DDD-ICD are available [3]. However, accurate identification of candidates for the DDD-ICD is essential because of the higher technological complexity and cost of this device in comparison to the single-chamber ICD.


Atrial Fibrillation Ventricular Tachycardia Ventricular Fibrillation Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Supraventricular Tachycardia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alpert MA, Curtis JJ, Sanfelippo JF et al (1987) Comparative survival following permanent ventricular and dual-chamber pacing for patients with chronic symptomatic sinus node dysfunction with and without congestive heart failure. Am Heart J 113:958–965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rediker DE, Eagle KA, Homma S et al (1988) Clinical and hemodynamic comparison of VV vs DDD pacing in patients with DDD pacemaker. Am J Cardiol 61:323–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iskos D, Fahy GJ, Lurie KG et al (1998) Physiologic cardiac pacing in patients with contemporary implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Am J Cardiol 82:66–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Proclemer A, Delia Bella P, Facchin D et al (2001) Indication for dual-chamber cardioverter defibrillator at implant and at 1 year follow-up: a retrospective analysis in the single-chamber defibrillator era. Europace 3:132–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geelen P, Lorga FA, Chauvin M et al (1997) The value of DDD pacing in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 20:177–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Best PJM, Hayes DL, Stanton MS (1999) The potential usage of dual chamber pacing in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 22:79–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Higgins SL, Seth KW, Pak JP, Meyer DB (1998) Indications for implantation of dual-chamber pacemaker combined with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Am J Cardiol 81:1360–1362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gregoratos G, Cheitlin MD, Conill A et al (1998) ACC/AHA guidelines for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices: a report of the American College of Cardiology / American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Pacemaker Implantation). J Am Coll Cardiol 31:1175–1209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andrews NP, Gudgel R, Evans JJ et al (1997) How frequently is dual chamber pacing indicated in patients with implantable defibrillators? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 20:1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kühlkamp V, Dörnberger V, Mewis C et al (1999) Clinical experience with the new detection algorithms for atrial fibrillation of a defibrillator with dual chamber sensing and pacing. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 10:905–915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilkoff BL, Kühlkamp V, Volosin K et al (2001) Critical analysis of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator arrhythmia detection. Results and technical considerations. Circulation 103:381–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dijkman B, Wellens HJJ (2000) Detection in the implantable cardioverter defibrillator. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 11:1105–1115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fan K, Lee K, Pak Lau C (1999) Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator benefit and limitations. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 3:239–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dijkman B, Wellens HJJ (2000) Importance of the atrial channel for a ventricular arrhythmia therapy in the dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 11:1309–1319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swerdlow CD, Schsls W, Dijkman B et al (2000) Detection of atrial fibrillation and flutter by a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Circulation 101:878–885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hayes DL (1996) Evolving indication for permanent pacing. New Engl J Med 334: 89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hesselson AB, Parsonnet V, Berstein AD, Bonavita GJ (1992) Deleterious effects of long-term single chamber pacing in patient with sick sinus syndrome: the hidden benefits of dual chamber pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol 17:1542–1549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sutton R, Bourgeois I (1996) Cost benefit analysis of single and dual chamber pacing for sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block. An economic sensitivity analysis of literature. Eur Heart J 17:574–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Proclemer
    • 1
  • D. Facchin
    • 1
  • M. Trentin
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto di Cardiología, Ospedale S. Maria della MisericordiaFondazione IRCABUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations