Long-term Survival of VDD Pacing

All patients with VDD systems implanted at a tertiary pacing center were identified from a computer database and data collected on pacing indications, follow-up duration, rate response, reasons for programming changes, and implant P wave amplitudes. Results: 366 implants were identified for which complete data were available for 335 leads implanted in 316 patients. The mean follow-up period was 24.1 months, and age at implant was 73.5 ± 11.8 years. During follow-up, 19 patients died (6%) and 62 (19.6%) were followed elsewhere. Indications for pacing were complete heart block, 56.6%; intermittent AV block, 21.8%; postablation complete heart block, 5.4%; 2:1 AV block, 13%; and others, 3.2%. Two groups: no mode change (NMC, n = 280) and mode change (MC, n = 36) were identified. Reasons for reprogramming in the MC group were as follows: atrial sensing, 11; AF/atrial flutter, 18; chronotropic incompetence, 3; and others 4. Significantly more MC patients had rate response programmed ON (44.4% vs 22.1%, P < 0.05). No significant differences between the two groups were found in other variables, including male gender (55.5% vs 54.6%), length of follow-up (27.1 ± 17.8 vs 23.8 ± 20.6 months), age at last follow-up (72 ± 12.3 vs 75.9 ± 11.9years), and P wave amplitude (1.7 ± 0.9 vs 1.8 ± 0.9mV). Conclusion: Reprogramming of VDD systems is infrequent. When necessary, it is usually prompted by atrial arrhythmias or failure of atrial sensing. When adequate atrial chronotropy has been verified, VDD is an acceptable alternative to DDD pacing and survives well over the long term.