Patients Implanted for AV Block: How Many Subsequently Develop Sinus Node Dysfunction?

  • M. Di Biase
  • M. Grimaldi
  • C. Forleo
  • G. Mavilio
  • M. V. Pitzalis
Conference paper


Dual-chamber atrio-ventricular synchronous pacing (DDD) has been shown in many studies to provide better hemodynamic parameter [1,2] and quality of life [3, 4] than VVI pacing in patients with A-V block. The complexity of implant procedures, the unreliability of some atrial leads, the extra time required for atrial lead fixation, the complexity of follow-up, the cost and the need for some patients to be programmed out of DDD created reluctance to implant dual-chamber pacemakers, and VVI pacing has been recommended as an acceptable treatment in the absence of retrograde conduction [5]. In order to avoid problems related to atrial leads, in patients with normal sinus node function and A-V block, newer single-lead systems with atrial dipoles have been shown to provide reliable atrial sensing and to ensure reliable AV synchrony in VDD mode [6, 7]. In patients implanted with this type of pacemaker it is important to know the real incidence of sinus node dysfunction over time. A low incidence would favor single-lead VDD systems, whereas a high incidence would make DDD or DDDR pacemaker systems more effective.


Atrial Fibrillation Sinus Node Pacemaker Implantation Sinus Bradycardia Sick Sinus Syndrome 
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.
    Lau CP, Tai YT, Li JP et al (1992) Initial clinical experience with a single pass VDDR pacing system. PACE 15:1894–1900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leclercq C, Gras D, LeHelloco A et al (1995) Hemodynamic importance of preserving the normal sequence of ventricular activation in permanent cardiac pacing. Am Heart J 129:1133–1141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lau CP, Tai YT, Lee PWH et al (1994) Quality of life in DDDR pacing: atrioventricular synchrony or rate adaptation? PACE 17:1838–1843PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lukl J, Doupal V, Heinc P et al (1994) Quality of life during DDD and dual sensor WIR pacing. PACE 17:1844–1848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Petch MC (1993) Who needs dual chamber pacing? BMJ 307:215–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antonioli GE (1994) Single lead atrial synchronous ventricular pacing: a dream come true. PACE 17:1531–1547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pitts Crick JC (1991) European multicenter prospective follow-up study of 1,002 implants of a single lead VDD pacing system. PACE 14:1742–1744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morsi A, Lau C, Nishimura S et al (1998) The development of sinoatrial dysfunction in pacemaker patients with isolated atrioventricular block. PACE 21:1430–1434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hunziker P, Buser P, Pfisterer M et al (1998) Predictors of loss of atrioventricular synchrony in single lead VDD pacing. Heart 80:390–392.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ben Ameur Y, Martin E, Jarwe M et al (1997) VDD mode single electrode cardiac stimulation: indications, results and limitations of the method. Ann Cardiol Angeiol 46:585–591Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibrahim B, Sanderson JE, Wright B et al (1995) Dual chamber pacing: how many patients remain in DDD mode over the long term? Br Heart J 74:76–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Folino AF, Buja G, Ruzza L et al (1994) Long-term follow-up of patients with singlelead VDD stimulation. PACE 17:1854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Folino AF, Buja G, Dal Corso L et al (1998) Incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients with different mode of pacing. Long term follow-up. PACE 21:260–263Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mattioli AV, Vivoli D, Mattioli G (1998) Influence of pacing modalities on the incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients without prior atrial fibrillation. A prospective study. Eur Heart J 19:282–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rey JL, Tribouilloy C, Elghelbazouri F et al (1998) Single-lead VDD pacing: long-term experience with four different systems. Am Heart J 135:1036–1039PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mattioli AV, Tarabini Castellani E, Vivoli D et al (1998) Prevalence of atrial fibrillation and stroke in paced patients without prior atrial fibrillation: a prospective study. Clin Cardiol 21:117–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Di Biase
    • 1
  • M. Grimaldi
    • 1
  • C. Forleo
    • 1
  • G. Mavilio
    • 1
  • M. V. Pitzalis
    • 1
  1. 1.Reparto di CardiologiaUniversità di Bari e FoggiaItaly

Personalised recommendations