Long-term follow-up of patients supplied with single-chamber or dual-chamber cardioverter defibrillators

Christof Kolb, Isabel Deisenhofer, Sebastian Schmieder, Petra Barthel, Bernhard Zrenner, Martin R. Karch, Claus Schmitt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 Scopus citations

Abstract

Introduction: In patients who have an indication for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) a dual-chamber device is indicated in the case of concomitant significant sinus node disease or atrioventricular block. It is a matter of debate whether dual-chamber ICD may be beneficial for patients with preserved sinus and atrioventricular nodal function as data from prospective randomized trials are limited. Mid- or long-term follow-up data are unavailable. Methods and Results: One hundred patients (age 60 ± 12 years, 11 women) with the indication for the implantation of an ICD and without antibradycardia pacing indication were randomly assigned to either receive a dual-chamber ICD (n = 52) or a single-chamber ICD (n = 48). Patients were followed-up for a mean of 52 ± 14 months. Mortality and arrhythmogenic morbidity were assessed. All-cause mortality was 21% for single-chamber and 31% for dual-chamber ICD recipients, respectively (P = 0.26). Cardiovascular mortality was 13% for single-chamber ICD recipients versus 21% in the dual-chamber group (P = 0.25). Subgroup analysis using 35% of ventricular paced beats as cutoff value in the dual-chamber ICD group revealed a 42% mortality rate for the patients with frequent ventricular pacing compared to 10% of patients with a low rate of ventricular pacing (P = 0.05, relative risk 4.21, 95% confidence interval: 0.9-19.8). As for arrhythmogenic morbidity, the difference in the ventricular tachyarrhythmia load was not different in both groups (single chamber: 23 ± 74 VT episodes, dual chamber: 54 ± 134 VT episodes, P = 0.17). Conclusion: In ICD recipients without conventional indication for dual-chamber pacing, dual chamber compared to single-chamber ICD has no advantage concerning mortality and arrhythmogenic morbidity in a long-term follow-up. In these patients the implantation of a single-chamber device is sufficient.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)946-952
Number of pages7
JournalPacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume29
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2006
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Arrhythmogenic morbidity
  • Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator
  • Long-term follow-up
  • Mortality
  • Right ventricular pacing

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Long-term follow-up of patients supplied with single-chamber or dual-chamber cardioverter defibrillators'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this