Advertisement






Click here for more guidelines.
CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009; 53:872-880, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.10.057
© 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online Appendix
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wilkoff, B. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Wilkoff, B. L.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Articles

CLINICAL RESEARCH: HEART RHYTHM DISORDER

The DAVID (Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator) II Trial

Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, FACC*, Peter J. Kudenchuk, MD, FACC{dagger},*, Alfred E. Buxton, MD, FACC{ddagger}, Arjun Sharma, MD§, James R. Cook, MD, FACC||, Anil K. Bhandari, MD, FACC, Michael Biehl, MD, FACC#, Gery Tomassoni, MD**, Anna Leonen, MS{dagger}, Linette R. Klevan, RN{dagger}{dagger}, Alfred P. Hallstrom, PhD{dagger} for the DAVID II Investigators

* Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
{dagger} University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
{ddagger} Brown University Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island
§ Boston Scientific Cardiac Rhythm Management, St. Paul, Minnesota
|| Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts
Hospital of the Good Samaritan, Los Angeles, California
# St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Paterson, New Jersey
** Central Baptist Hospital, Lexington, Kentucky
{dagger}{dagger} Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, Norfolk, Virginia

Manuscript received August 30, 2008; revised manuscript received October 15, 2008, accepted October 21, 2008.

* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Peter J. Kudenchuk, Division of Cardiology, Box 356422, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-6422 (Email: kudenchu{at}u.washington.edu).

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine whether atrial pacing is a safe alternative to minimal (backup-only) ventricular pacing in defibrillator recipients with impaired ventricular function.

Background: The DAVID (Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator) trial demonstrated that dual chamber rate responsive pacing as compared with ventricular backup-only pacing worsens the combined end point of mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Although altered ventricular activation from right ventricular pacing was presumed to be the likely cause for these maladaptive effects, this supposition is unproven.

Methods: In all, 600 patients with impaired ventricular function from 29 North American sites, who required an implanted defibrillator for primary or secondary prevention, with no clinical indication for pacing, were randomly assigned to atrial pacing (at 70 beats/min) versus minimal ventricular pacing (at 40 beats/min) and followed up for a mean of 2.7 years.

Results: There were no significant differences between pacing arms in patients' baseline characteristics, use of heart failure medications, and combined primary end point of time to death or heart failure hospitalization during follow-up, with an overall incidence of 11.1%, 16.9%, and 24.6% at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Similarly, the incidence of atrial fibrillation, syncope, appropriate or inappropriate shocks, and quality of life measures did not significantly differ between treatment groups.

Conclusions: The effect of atrial pacing on event-free survival and quality of life was not substantially worse than, and was likely equivalent to, backup-only ventricular pacing. Atrial pacing may be considered a "safe alternative" when pacing is desired in defibrillator recipients, but affords no clear advantage or disadvantage over a ventricular pacing mode that minimizes pacing altogether. (Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator [DAVID] Trial II; NCT00187187 [ClinicalTrials.gov] )

Key Words: implantable defibrillator • heart failure • pacing

Abbreviations and Acronyms
  AAI-70 = atrial pacing at a rate of 70 beats/min
  AV = atrioventricular
  DDDR-70 = dual chamber rate responsive pacing at 70 beats/min
  MLHF = Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire
  NYHA = New York Heart Association
  VVI-40 = ventricular backup pacing at a rate of 40 beats/min


Related Articles

DAVID II Did Not Slay Goliath
Brian Olshansky, Rakesh Gopinathannair, and Renee M. Sullivan
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009 53: 881-883. [Full Text] [PDF]

Inside This Issue
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009 53: A35. [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
B. Olshansky, R. Gopinathannair, and R. M. Sullivan
DAVID II did not slay Goliath.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 10, 2009; 53(10): 881 - 883.
[Full Text] [PDF]



 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement