A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Dual-chamber vs. single-chamber pacemaker in patients in sinus rhythm with an atrioventricular block: a nationwide cohort study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Aims: In complete atrioventricular block (AVB) with underlying sinus rhythm, it is recommended to implant a dual-chamber pacemaker rather than a single-chamber pacemaker. However, no large-scale study has been able to demonstrate the superiority of this choice on hard clinical criteria such as morbimortality.

Methods And Results: This retrospective observational study included all patients who received a primary pacemaker implantation in the indication of complete AVB with underlying sinus rhythm in France, based on the national administrative database between January 2013 and December 2022. After propensity score matching, we obtained two groups containing 19 219 patients each. The incidence of all-cause mortality was 9.22%/year for the dual-chamber pacemaker group, compared with 11.48%/year for the single-chamber pacemaker group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.807, P < 0.0001]. Similarly, there was a lower incidence of cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.766, P < 0.0001), heart failure (HR 0.908, P < 0.0001), atrial fibrillation (HR 0.778, P < 0.0001), and ischaemic stroke (HR 0.873, P = 0.008) in the dual-chamber pacemaker group than in the single-chamber pacemaker group. Regarding re-interventions and complications, there were fewer upgrades (addition of atrial lead or left ventricular lead) in the dual-chamber group (HR 0.210, P < 0.0001), but more haematomas (HR 1.179, P = 0.006) and lead repositioning (HR 1.123, P = 0.04).

Conclusion: In the indication of complete AVB with underlying sinus rhythm, our results are consistent with current recommendations to prefer implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker rather than a single-chamber pacemaker for these patients. Implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker is associated with a lower risk of mortality, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and stroke during follow-up.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11424992PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae238DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

single-chamber pacemaker
20
dual-chamber pacemaker
20
sinus rhythm
16
pacemaker group
16
avb underlying
12
underlying sinus
12
pacemaker
11
pacemaker patients
8
atrioventricular block
8
pacemaker single-chamber
8

Similar Publications