Abstract
Although mode-dependent differences in mortality are for the moment unproven, establishing a health-related quality of life difference between assigned pacing modes would be useful. Such a difference, if one exists, should be ≥0.5 standard deviation units among scales using validated instruments to have significant clinical meaning. Two large data sets, the Canadian Trial of Physiological Pacing (CTOPP) and the Mode Selection Trial (MOST) both similar in design, largely failed to clearly establish such a significant difference. Another trial the Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly (PASE) did suggest that for sinus node disease, DDD-R pacing may lead to an improvement in quality of life mainly early post implant. Two other large trials, UK-PACE and DANPACE have yet to present quality of life related results. All published data have established that restoration of chronotropic competence by pacing leads to improvements in quality of life that are significant. In CTOPP an attempt to quantify a mode-dependent difference for a pacemaker syndrome suggested that the prevalence and clinical importance of pacemaker syndrome may be exaggerated. The relative ease of crossover from VVI-R to DDD, by device upgrade in CTOPP or by programming in MOST, may explain the 2.9% vs. 31% crossover rates seen in CTOPP vs. MOST respectively. Trials to date may have had a mode dependent difference undermined by possible adverse effects from right ventricular apical sites of pacing. Future trial data; DANPACE, sinus node disease AAI-R vs. DDD-R and PAVE, post AVJ ablation VVI-R vs. VVI-CRT, will asses in more detail the role of site of pacing as a factor in determining mode dependent outcomes in pacing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Connolly SJ, Kerr CR, Gent M, Roberts RS, Yusuf S, Gillis AM, Sami MH, Talajic M, Tang AS, Klein GJ, Lau C, Newman DM. Effects of physiologic pacing versus ventricular pacing on the risk of stroke and death due to cardiovascular causes. xx]Canadian Trial of Physiologic Pacing Investigators. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1385–1391.
Lamas GA, Lee KL, Sweeney MO, Silverman R, Leon A, Yee R, Marinchak RA, Flaker G, Schron E, Orav EJ, Hellkamp AS, Greer S, McAnulty J, Ellenbogen K, Ehlert F, Freedman RA, Estes NA 3rd, Greenspon A, Goldman L. Mode Selection Trial in Sinus-Node Dysfunction. Ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing for sinus-node dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1854–1862.
Kerr CR, Connolly S, Abdollah H, Roberts R, Gent M, Yusuf S, Gillis AM, Tang AS, Talajic M, Klein GJ, Newman DM. Canadian trial of physiologic pacing: Effect of physiologic pacing during long-term follow-up. Circulation 2004 (in press).
Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996;276:1253–1258.
Lopez-Jimenez F, Goldman L, Orav EJ, Ellenbogen K, Stambler B, Marinchak R, Wilkoff BL, Mangione CM, Yoon C, Vitale K, Lamas GA. Health values before and after pacemaker implantation. Am Heart J 2002;144:687–692
Shipper HS, Clinch JJ, Olewny CLM. Quality of life studies: Definitions and conceptual issues. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publications, 1996, pp. 11–13.
Ware, J.E.Jr. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993.
Newman D, Dorian P, Paquette M, Irvine J, Tang ASL, Woodend K, Connolly S, Lau C. The effect of pacing mode on health-related quality of life in the Canadian Trial of Physiologic Pacing (CTOPP). Am Heart J 2003;145:430–437.
Lamas GA, Orav EJ, Stambler BS, Ellenbogen KA, Sgarbossa EB, Huang SK, Marinchak RA, Estes NA 3rd, Mitchell GF, Lieberman EH, Mangione CM, Goldman L. Quality of life and clinical outcomes in elderly patients treated with ventricular pacing as compared with dualchamber pacing. Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly Investigators. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1097–1104.
Stambler BS, Ellenbogen KA, Orav EJ, Sgarbossa EB, Estes NA, Rizo-Patron C, Kirchhoffer JB, Hadjis TA, Goldman L, Lamas GA. Predictors and clinical impact of atrial fibrillation after pacemaker implantation in elderly patients treated with dual chamber versus ventricular pacing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2003;26:2000–2007.
Montanez A, Hennekens CH, Zebede J, Lamas. Pacemaker mode selection: The evidence from randomized trials. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2003;26:1270–1282.
The DAVID Trial Investigators. Dual-chamber pacing or ventricular backup pacing in patients with an implantable defibrillator: The dual chamber and VVI implantable de-fibrillator (DAVID) Trial. JAMA 2002;288:3115–3123.
Sweeney M, Hellkamp, Ellenbogen K, Greenspon A, Freedman R, Lee K, Lamas G. Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation 2003;108:2932–2937.
Andersen HR, Nielsen JC. Pacing in sick sinus syndrome: Need for a prospective, randomized trial comparing atrial with dual chamber pacing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1998;21:1175–1179.
Stambler BS, Ellenbogen KA, Zhang X, Porter TR, Malik R, Small R, Burke M, Kaplan A, Nair L, Xie F, for the ROVA Trial Investigators. Right ventricular outflow tract versus atrial pacing (ROVA): Results of a Randomized, Single-Blind, Crossover Trial in Pacemaker Recipients with Congestive Heart Failure. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2002;25:557.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Newman, D. Relationships between Pacing Mode and Quality of Life: Evidence from Randomized Clinical Trials. Card Electrophysiol Rev 7, 401–405 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023164.83349.c5
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023164.83349.c5