These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A randomized trial comparing two different approaches of pacemaker selection.
    Author: Kühne M, Schaer B, Kaufmann C, Moulay N, Cron T, Cueni T, Weiss P, Schindler C, Sticherling C, Osswald S.
    Journal: Europace; 2007 Dec; 9(12):1185-90. PubMed ID: 17951267.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: DDD-pacemakers are favoured in patients with sick-sinus-syndrome or AV-block. However, AAI-pacemakers for sick-sinus-syndrome or VDD-pacemakers for AV-block may provide similar benefit with lower costs. The aim is to show that a tailored approach (TA) with arrhythmia-specific pacemaker selection was equal to a standard approach (SA) regarding quality of life (QoL) at lower costs. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study was prospective and randomized with QoL as primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were a combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, worsening heart failure or angina, atrial fibrillation (AF), stroke, these endpoints individually and costs. Of 198 patients (age 77 +/- 10 years, 43% female, ejection fraction 54 +/- 12%, follow-up 38 +/- 15 months), 94 were randomized to SA and 104 to TA. Thirty-two patients (34%) died in the SA group vs. 25 (24%) in the TA (P= ns). QoL showed no differences in all dimensions. The combined secondary endpoint was reached more frequently with SA (51%) compared to TA (37%, P = 0.045). There was no difference regarding all single secondary endpoints. Hardware costs were reduced by 15% (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In long-term follow-up, a TA is equal to SA regarding the primary endpoint QoL and secondary endpoints as AF and mortality. Depending on the healthcare system, it may significantly reduce costs.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]