Atrial Pacing: Who do We Pace and What do We Expect? Experiences with 100 Atrial Pacemakers

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The records of 100 patients with permanent atrial pacemakers implanted over a 7-year period were reviewed to assess the role and results of this mode of pacing. Indications for pacing were sick sinus syndrome in 91, carotid sinus hypersensitivity in 3, and use of an antitachycardia device in 6 patients. The mean follow-up period was 32.9 months. Symptomatic relief was good. Lead dislodgment occurred in 11 patients (usually in the first week). Threshold rises not amenable to reprogramming occurred in three patients and loss of sensing occurred in seven patients but only one required intervention. Overall, 21 patients required reoperation. The type of lead did not influence the need for reoperation that appeared to be related to the experience of the operator. Complete atrioventricular block occurred in three patients, two of whom had carotid sinus hypersensitivity and one had sick sinus syndrome. Chronic atrial fibrillation occurred in five patients, none of whom required revision of the pacemaker system. Atrial pacing is a satisfactory pacing mode in patients with sick sinus syndrome. Provided satisfactory atrioventricular conduction has been shown by incremental atrial pacing to at least 120 beats/min and carotid hypersensitivity is absent, progression to complete atrioventricular block is uncommon. Greater implanting skills are required for good results.