Observational studyMedicine2016
Long-term outcome in patients receiving permanent pacemaker implantation for atrioventricular block: Comparison of VDD and DDD pacing.
Observational study in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term mortality and treatment outcomes in pacemaker-associated heart failure: insights from a nationwide propensity-matched study.European heart journal open · 2026Article
- Syncope and All-Cause Mortality in Heart Failure: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2025Article
- Predictors of complications and mortality among patients undergoing pacemaker implantation in resource-limited settings: a 10-year retrospective follow-up study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Association of selected factors with long-term prognosis and mortality after dual-chamber pacemaker implant.Cardiology journal · 2019Article
- Management of cardiac conduction abnormalities and arrhythmia in aircrew.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A permanent pacemaker (PPM) with dual chamber pacing (DDD) offers atrioventricular synchronization for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). Single lead atrial synchronous ventricular pacing mode (VDD) is an alternative, but there are concerns about its efficacy and risk of atrial undersensing. Whether VDD can be a good alternative in patients with AVB remains unknown. The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term risk of mortality of VDD with DDD pacing.A total of 207 patients undergoing PPM implantations for AVB with VDD mode were enrolled from 2000 to 2013. Another 828 age- and sex-matched patients undergoing DDD implantations during the same period of time were selected as the control group in a 1 to 4 ratio. The study endpoint was mortality.A total of 1035 patients (64.3% male) were followed up for 46.5 ± 43.2 months. The mean ages were 75.0 years for VDD, and 74.9 years for DDD. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed no significant difference in long-term survival between the VDD and DDD groups (log-rank P = 0.313). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the VDD and DDD groups had a similar long-term prognosis with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.875 (P = 0.445). Further analyses for the risk of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths also showed no significant differences between the 2 groups.The long-term prognosis of VDD mode is comparable to that of DDD mode. Single lead VDD can be considered as an alternative choice in patients with AVB without sinus nodal dysfunction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.