Dual chamber cardiac pacing in children: Single chamber pacing dual chamber sensing cardiac pacemaker or dual chamber pacing and sensing cardiac pacemaker?

BACKGROUND Dual chamber pacemakers (single chamber pacing dual chamber sensing cardiac pacemaker (VDD) and dual chamber pacing and sensing cardiac pacemaker (DDD)) are being used frequently in children and adolescents. The aim of this study was to verify the safety and performance of the VDD and DDD pacing systems, and to evaluate the differences between two pacing modes with regard to atrial sensing and tracking functions. METHODS In this study, we evaluated 14 patients with VDD pacing and 15 patients with DDD pacing between 1994 and 2000. In the patient group with VDD pacing, all had congenital or acquired atrioventricular (AV) block. In the patient group with DDD pacing, 11 had congenital or acquired AV block, three had sinus node dysfunction with AV conduction disturbance and one had idiopathic hypertrophic subaortic stenosis. Twenty-eight devices were implanted in the subpectoral area using the transvenous route. After implantation the atrial tracking capabilities of the pacing systems were analyzed by telemetry, Holter monitoring, and treadmill exercise testing. RESULTS The mean age of patients in the VDD pacing group was younger. The percentage of congenital heart disease was higher in the DDD pacing group. There was no significant difference regarding fluoroscopy time during implantation and follow-up time between the two groups. During implantation, in the VDD pacing group the mean sensed atrial signal was 3.1 +/- 1.3 mV and this decreased to 1.37 +/- 0.68 mV (P < 0.05) during follow-up. This pattern was also observed in DDD group (3 +/- 2 mV vs 1.9 +/- 1.5 mV, P < 0.05). Although the P wave measurement at implantation did not differ between the two groups, it was significantly higher in the DDD pacing group at the last control. Three patients with VDD pacing were reprogrammed to VVI or single chamber pacing and sensing, rate adaptive cardiac pacemaker because of complete loss of AV synchrony. There was no atrial sensing problem in the DDD pacing group. During the follow-up, one patient with VDD pacing developed diaphragmatic stimulation and required lead revision. In one patient with DDD pacing, venous thrombosis occurred in the right subclavian vein and was treated with thrombolytic therapy. During treadmill exercise testing, in one patient with VDD and one patient with DDD pacing temporary failure of atrial sensing occurred. At 24 h Holter monitoring, intermittent loss of atrial sensing was documented in two patients with VDD pacing. CONCLUSIONS Dual chamber pacing in children with DDD or VDD pacemakers is a suitable method for bradycardia treatment. Atrial sensing problems may occur in VDD pacemakers. Therefore, DDD pacing mode should be preferred whenever suitable for the patient to maintain the AV synchrony.