Natural history of sinus node disease treated with atrial pacing in 213 patients: Implications for selection of stimulation mode

AbstractObjectives. This study was designed to analyze the incidence and determinants of complications and long-term survival in sinus node disease treated with atrial pacing.Background. Knowledge of the natural history of sinus node disease treated with different pacing modes is imperfect, and controversy exists regarding the optimal pacemaker therapy.Methods. A consecutive series of 213 patients with sinus node disease initially treated with atrial pacing was studied for a median follow-up period of 60 months. The end points studied were permanent atrial fibrillation, high grade atrioventricular (AV) block, P wave undersensing, pacing mode change, reoperation and death. Several prognostic factors were evaluated statistically and the survival rate was compared with that of a matched general population.Results. The incidence rate of permanent atrial fibrillation during follow-up was 7% (1.4%/year). The risk of this arrhythmia increased substantially with age ≥ 70 years at pacemaker implantation. Only 2 of the 15 patients who developed permanent atrial fibrillation required ventricular pacing. High grade AV block occurred in 8.5% (1.8%/year) and its incidence was much greater in patients with complete bundle branch block or bifascicular block (35%) than in patients without such conduction disturbances (6%).A change to ventricular or dual-chamber stimulation was necessary in 14% of all patients, primarily because of early lead dislodgment or high grade AV block. Surgical intervention with maintenance of atrial pacing was required in 7% of patients.The survival rates of 97% at 1 year, 89% at 5 years and 72% at 10 years did not differ significantly from those of a matched general population.Conclusions. In sinus node disease, atrial pacing can be successfully applied during long-term follow-up. Patients with complete bundle branch or bifascicular block in addition to sinus node disease should initially receive a dual-chamber pacemaker, but routine application of dual-chamber stimulation does not appear to be warranted