Clinical and echocardiographic features of patients with single-chamber and dual-chamber pacemakers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20260936Keywords:
Pacemaker, Single-chamber, Dual-chamber, Echocardiographic features, Clinical featuresAbstract
Background: The abnormalities in cardiac action potential generation and propagation may emerge at various levels in the electrical conduction system of heart, initiating from the sinoatrial node to the purkinje fibers which depolarize the ventricles. Thus, decline in this internal cardiac automaticity or propagation integrity, requires prompt use of pacemaker to initiate the cardiomyocytes to the baseline through excitation-contraction coupling. The aim of this study is to identify clinical and echocardiographic features of patients with single-chamber and dual-chamber pacemakers.
Methods: This retrospective study consist of 85 patients admitted to the Grodno Regional Clinical Cardiological Center (Belarus) for pacemaker implantation over a period of 2 years, from January 2024 to December 2025. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the type of pacemaker implanted. Group 1 included 42 patients with single-chamber pacemakers, while Group 2 included 43 patients with dual-chamber pacemakers.
Results: This study consisted of 85 patients divided into single-chamber (SR, n=42) and dual-chamber (DR, n=43) pacemaker groups. The SR group was older (median 77 vs. 71.8 years, p=0.01). Sick sinus syndrome and second-degree AV block were more frequent in DR (60.4% and 27.9%, p<0.01), while third-degree AV block and persistent atrial fibrillation was prevalent in SR (57.1% and 80.9%, p<0.001). ESR and AST were lower, and RBC counts borderline higher in DR (p≤0.05). SR showed larger atrial diameters and more pleural effusion (p<0.01); ventricular function was similar.
Conclusions: This study explored the significant differences among patients with single-chamber and dual-chamber pacemakers in clinical, rhythm, laboratory, and echocardiographic parameters.
Metrics
References
Mulpuru SK, Madhavan M, McLeod CJ, Cha YM, Friedman PA. Cardiac pacemakers: function, troubleshooting, and management: part 1 of a 2-part series. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(2):189-210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.061
Haffajee CI. Temporary cardiac pacing: modes, evaluation of function, equipment, and trouble shooting. Cardiol Clin. 1985;3(4):515-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0733-8651(18)30649-0
Trappe HJ, Achtelik M, Pfitzner P, Voigt B, Weismüller P. Single-chamber versus dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Indications and clinical results. Am J cardiol. 1999;83(5):8-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(98)01037-6
Castelnuovo E, Stein K, Pitt M, Garside R, Payne E. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers compared with single-chamber pacemakers for bradycardia due to atrioventricular block or sick sinus syndrome: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health technol assess. 2005;9(43):3-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta9430
Toff WD, Camm AJ, Skehan JD. Single-chamber versus dual-chamber pacing for high-grade atrioventricular block. New Engl J Med. 2005;353(2):145-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa042283
Dretzke J, Toff WD, Lip GYH, Raftery J, Fry-Smith A, Taylor RS. Dual chamber versus single chamber ventricular pacemakers for sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD003710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003710.pub2
Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Barrett C, Edgerton JR, Ellenbogen KA, Gold MR, et al. 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS guideline on the evaluation and management of patients with bradycardia and cardiac conduction delay: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(7):e156.
Sweeney MO, Sherfesee L, DeGroot PJ, Wathen MS, Wilkoff BL. Differences in effects of electrical therapy type for ventricular arrhythmias on mortality in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients. Heart rhythm. 2010;7(3):353-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2009.11.027
Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, Bordachar P, Boriani G, Breithardt OA, et al. ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the Task Force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Eur heart J. 2013;34(29): 2281-329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht150
Mond HG, Proclemer A. The 11th world survey of cardiac pacing and implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators: calendar year 2009–a World Society of Arrhythmia's project. Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. 2011;34(8):1013-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03150.x
Nattel S, Heijman J, Zhou L, Dobrev D. Molecular basis of atrial fibrillation pathophysiology and therapy: a translational perspective. Circ res. 2020;127(1):51-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.316363
Hu CS, Han YL, Ge JB, Wu QH, Liu YN, Ma CS, et al. A novel management program for hypertension. Cardiovas Diagn Ther. 2015;5(4):316-24.
Tsang TS, Barnes ME, Gersh BJ, Bailey KR, Seward JB. Left atrial volume as a morphophysiologic expression of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and relation to cardiovascular risk burden. Am J cardiol. 2002;90(12):1284-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02864-3
Trial DD. Dual-Chamber Pacing or Ventricular Backup Pacing in Patients with an Implantable Defibrillator. JAMA. 2002;288(24):3115-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.24.3115
Kiehl EL, Makki T, Kumar R, Gumber D, Kwon DH, Rickard JW, et al. Incidence and predictors of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with complete atrioventricular block and preserved left ventricular systolic function. Heart rhythm. 2016;13(12):2272-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.09.027
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
