Atrial Pacing and the Risk for AV Block: Is There a Time for Change in Attitude?

A literature survey was performed to establish the prevalence of second and third degree AV block among patients with permanent atrial pacemakers because of sinus node disease. This study reviews data from 28 different studies on atrial pacing with a median follow‐up of 36 months. The collected data shows a median annual incidence of second and third degree AV block of 0.6%, range 0%–4.5% with a total prevalence of 2.1%, range 0%–11.9%. There was no significant difference in follow‐up time between studies that showed a low, compared with a high incidence of AV‐block. Patients with sinus node disease treated with atrial pacing have a low risk of developing clinically important conduction disturbancies.

[1]  J Brandt,et al.  Long-term pacing in sinus node disease: effects of stimulation mode on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. , 1988, American heart journal.

[2]  R. Kenny,et al.  The Natural History of Sick Sinus Syndrome , 1986, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[3]  N. Hemel,et al.  Is Chronic Atrial Stimulation a Reliable Method for Single Chamber Pacing in Sick Sinus Syndrome? , 1986, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[4]  W. Hemmer,et al.  What Is the Most Appropriate Stimulation Mode in Patients with Sinus Node Dysfunction? , 1986, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[5]  S. Pehrsson,et al.  Atrial pacing in the management of sick sinus syndrome: long-term observation for conduction disturbances and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. , 1986, European heart journal.

[6]  M. Rosenqvist,et al.  Clinical and electrophysiologic course of sinus node disease: five-year follow-up study. , 1985, American heart journal.

[7]  P. Gillette,et al.  Use of Atrial Pacing in a Young Population , 1985, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[8]  A. Segers,et al.  Serial electrophysiologic studies after single chamber atrial pacemaker implantation in patients with symptomatic sinus node dysfunction. , 1984, European heart journal.

[9]  D. Hayes,et al.  Stability of AV conduction in sick sinus node syndrome patients with implanted atrial pacemakers. , 1984, American heart journal.

[10]  H. Kulbertus,et al.  Natural evolution of atrioventricular conduction in patients with sick sinus syndrome treated by atrial demand pacing. A study of 26 cases. , 1983, Acta cardiologica.

[11]  J. Stone,et al.  Dual chamber sequential pacing management of sinus node dysfunction: advantages over single-chamber pacing. , 1982, American heart journal.

[12]  H. Vallin,et al.  Associated conduction disturbances in patients with symptomatic sinus node disease. , 2009, Acta medica Scandinavica.

[13]  P. Samet,et al.  Electrophysiologic evaluation of elderly patients with sinus bradycardia: a long-term follow-up study. , 2020, Annals of internal medicine.

[14]  O. Ohm,et al.  Sick sinus syndrome treated with permanent pacemaker in 109 patients. A follow-up study. , 2009, Acta medica Scandinavica.

[15]  N P Smyth,et al.  Clinical experience with a new transvenous atrial lead. , 1978, Chest.

[16]  P. Greenberg,et al.  Coronary Sinus Pacing: Clinical Follow‐up , 1978, Circulation.

[17]  A. Moss,et al.  Atrial Pacing from the Coronary Vein: Ten‐year Experience in 50 Patients with Implanted Pervenous Pacemakers , 1978, Circulation.

[18]  D. Shaw,et al.  Pathological studies in sinoatrial disorder (sick sinus syndrome). , 1977, British heart journal.

[19]  O. Narula.  Atrioventricular Conduction Defects in Patients with Sinus Bradycardia: Analysis by His Bundle Recordings , 1971, Circulation.

[20]  K. Rosen,et al.  Cardiac Conduction in Patients with Symptomatic Sinus Node Disease , 1971, Circulation.