Physiological Pacing: Perspective

  • I.E. Ovsyshcher
Conference paper


Right Ventricle Left Bundle Branch Block Ventricular Pace Sick Sinus Syndrome Physiological Pace 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ovsyshcher IE (1997) Toward physiological pacing: optimization of cardiac hemodynamics by AV delay adjustment. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 20:861–865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Connolly SJ, Kerr C, Gent M et al (1996) Dual-chamber versus ventricular pacing: critical appraisal of current data. Circulation 94:578–583PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ovsyshcher I (1995) Matching optimal pacemaker to patient: do we need a large scale clinical trial of pacemaker mode selection? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 18:1845–1852PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ovsyshcher IE, Hayes DL, Furman S (1998) Dual-chamber pacing is superior to ventricular pacing: fact or controversy? Circulation 97:2368–2370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ovsyshcher IE, Furman S (2003) Determinants of geographic variations in pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators implantation rates. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 26:474–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andersen HR, Thuesen L, Bagger JP et al (1994) Prospective randomised trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing in sick-sinus syndrome. Lancet 344:1523–1528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andersen HR, Nielsen JC, Thomsen PE et al (1997) Long-term follow-up of patients from a randomised trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing for sick sinus syndrome. Lancet 350:1210–1216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nielsen JC, Andersen HR, Thomsen PE et al (1998) Heart failure and echocardiographic changes during long-term followup of patients with sick sinus syndrome randomized to single chamber atrial or ventricular pacing. Circulation 97: 987–995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lamas GA, Orav J, Stambler BS et al (1998) Quality of life and clinical outcomes in elderly patients treated with ventricular pacing as compared with dual chamber pacing. N Engl J Med 338:1097–1104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ellenbogen KA, Stambler BS, Orav EJ et al (2000) Clinical characteristics of patients intolerant to VVIR pacing. Am J Cardiol 86:59–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mattioli AV, Vivoli D, Mattioli G (1998) Influence of pacing modalities on the incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients without prior atrial fibrillation. A prospective study. Eur Heart J 19:282–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Connolly SJ, Kerr CR, Gent M et al (2000) Effects of physiologic pacing versus ventricular pacing on the risk of stroke and death due to cardiovascular causes. Canadian Trial of Physiologic Pacing Investigators. N Engl J Med 342:1385–1391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kerr CR, Connolly SJ, Abdollah H et al (2004) Canadian Trial of Physiological Pacing: effects of physiological pacing during long-term follow-up. Circulation 109:357–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lamas GA, Lee KL, Sweeney M et al (2002) Ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing for sinus-node dysfunction. N Engl J Med 346:1854–1862PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA et al (2003) Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation 107:2932–2937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nielsen JC, Kristensen L, Andersen HR et al (2003) A randomized comparison of atrial and dual-chamber pacing in 177 consecutive patients with sick sinus syndrome: echocardiographic and clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 42:614–623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilkoff BL, Cook JR, Epstein AE et al (2002) Dual-chamber pacing or ventricular backup pacing in patients with an implantable defibrillator: The Dual chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial. JAMA 288:115–1123Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Albertsen AE, Nielsen JC (2003) Selecting the appropriate pacing mode for patients with sick sinus syndrome: evidence from randomized clinical trials. Card Electrophysiol Rev 7:406–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ et al (2002) Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 346:877–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vernooy K, Verbeek XAAM, Peschar M et al (2005) Left bundle branch block induces ventricular remodelling and functional septal hypoperfusion. Eur Heart J 26:91–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vanagt WY, Verbeek XA, Delhaas T et al (2004) The left ventricular apex is the optimal site for pediatric pacing: correlation with animal experience. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 27:837–843PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ector H, Ovsyshcher IE, Oto A et al (2003) The registry of the European Working Group on cardiac pacing: 2000–2001 (abstract). Europace 4:B100Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lieberman R, Grenz D, Mond HG et al (2004) Selective site pacing: defining and reaching the selected site. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 27(6 Pt 2):883–886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • I.E. Ovsyshcher
    • 1
  1. 1.Electrophysiology Laboratory, Faculty of Health SciencesBen Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations