Author + information
- Received January 16, 1984
- Revision received January 16, 1984
- Accepted April 22, 1984
- Published online September 1, 1984.
- David L. Hayes, MD, FACC*,1,
- David R. Holmes Jr., MD, FACC,
- Ronald E. Vlietstra, MB, ChB, FACC and
- Michael J. Osborn, MD, FACC
- ↵*Address for reprints: David L. Hayes, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905.
Dual chamber (DDD) or “universal” pacemakers have had a significant impact on the advancement of artificial pacemakers by providing a more physiologic approach to cardiac pacing. However, with the early generation of DDD pacemakers (pacemakers that sense and pace in both the atrium and the ventricle), a significant number of patients experienced pacemaker-mediated tachycardia because intact ventriculoatrial conduction was sensed in the atrium and a reentrant tachycardia was induced. Newer generation DDD pacemakers have provided longer atrial refractory periods, which should correct this problem.
In this study the first and second years of a 2 year experience with DDD pacemakers were compared to determine if the newer generation devices have allowed maintenance of pacing in the DDD mode as opposed to reprogramming to some alternate mode because of pacemaker-mediated tachycardia or other pacing problems. The results showed a significant decrease in pacemaker-mediated tachycardia during the second year and continuation of pacing in the DDD mode in a higher percent of patients. This improvement is attributed to improvement in the pulse generator as well as better patient selection.
- Received January 16, 1984.
- Revision received January 16, 1984.
- Accepted April 22, 1984.
- American College of Cardiology Foundation