The Experts below are selected from a list of 243 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Henning Rud Andersen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • atrioventricular conduction during long term follow up of patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome
    Circulation, 1998
    Co-Authors: Henning Rud Andersen, Leif Thuesen, Thomas Vesterlund, Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen, Jens Cosedis Nielsen, Anders Kirstein Pedersen, Peter Thomas Mortensen
    Abstract:

    Background—It has been claimed that patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome have an increased risk of developing AV block, but this has never been assessed prospectively. The aim of the present study was to evaluate in a prospective trial AV conduction during the long-term follow-up of patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome. Methods—Two hundred twenty-five consecutive patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome and intact AV conduction were randomized to undergo single-chamber atrial pacing (110 patients) or single-chamber ventricular pacing (115 patients). Follow-up after 3 months and then yearly included measurement of the PQ interval and, in patients with atrial pacemakers, determination of the atrial stimulus–Q intervals at pacing rates of 100 and 120 bpm. The occurrence of AV block in the atrial group was recorded. During follow-up (mean, 5.5±2.4 years), there was no change in PQ interval in either group and no change in atrial stimulus–Q intervals or Wenckebach block point in the atrial group. Four of 110 patients in th...

  • Sick Sinus Syndrome. Pacemaker with atrial versus ventricular stimulation
    Ugeskrift for laeger, 1996
    Co-Authors: Henning Rud Andersen, Leif Thuesen, Jens Peder Bagger, Thomas Vesterlund, Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen
    Abstract:

    In patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome, single chamber atrial pacing has been reported in retrospective studies to be associated with lower frequencies of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolism, heart failure, and mortality than ventricular pacing. We did a prospective randomised trial in 225 consecutive patients (142 women, 83 men; mean age 76 years) with the Sick Sinus Syndrome, randomised to atrial (n = 110) or ventricular (n = 115) pacing and followed for up to five years (mean 40 [SD 18] months). During follow-up, the frequency of atrial fibrillation was higher in the ventricular group. Thromboembolic events (stroke or peripheral arterial embolus) occurred in 20 patients in the ventricular group and in six patients in the atrial group (p = 0.008). Twenty five patients died in the ventricular group compared with 21 in the atrial group (p = 0.74). The number of cases of heart failure did not differ between the two groups. Atrioventricular block occurred in two patients in the atrial group. It is concluded that patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome should be treated with atrial pacing rather than ventricular pacing because atrial pacing is associated with lower frequencies of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolic complications, and a low risk of atrioventricular block.

  • prospective randomised trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing in Sick Sinus Syndrome
    The Lancet, 1994
    Co-Authors: Henning Rud Andersen, Leif Thuesen, Jens Peder Bagger, Thomas Vesterlund, Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen
    Abstract:

    Abstract Summary In patients with Sick-Sinus Syndrome, single-chamber atrial pacing has been reported, in retrospective studies, to be associated with lower frequencies of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolism, heart failure, and mortality than ventricular pacing; although single-chamber ventricular pacing is most commonly used. We did a prospective randomised trial in 225 consecutive patients (142 women, 83 men; mean age 76 years) with the Sick-Sinus Syndrome, randomised to atrial (n=110) or ventricular (n=115) pacing and followed for up to 5 years (mean 40 [SD 18] months). During follow-up, the frequency of atrial fibrillation was higher in the ventricular group, except at the first follow-up at 3 months. Thromboembolic events (stroke or peripheral arterial embolus) occurred in 20 patients in the ventricular group and in 6 patients in the atrial group (p=0·0083). 25 patients died in the ventricular group compared with 21 in the atrial group (p=0·74). Heart failure estimated by the New York Heart Association classification and by the daily doses of diuretics did not differ between the two groups. Atrioventricular block occurred in 2 patients in the atrial group. Patients with Sick-Sinus Syndrome should be treated with atrial pacing rather than ventricular pacing because atrial pacing is associated with lower frequencies of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolic complications, and a low risk of atrioventricular block.

Peter Thomas Mortensen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • atrioventricular conduction during long term follow up of patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome
    Circulation, 1998
    Co-Authors: Henning Rud Andersen, Leif Thuesen, Thomas Vesterlund, Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen, Jens Cosedis Nielsen, Anders Kirstein Pedersen, Peter Thomas Mortensen
    Abstract:

    Background—It has been claimed that patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome have an increased risk of developing AV block, but this has never been assessed prospectively. The aim of the present study was to evaluate in a prospective trial AV conduction during the long-term follow-up of patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome. Methods—Two hundred twenty-five consecutive patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome and intact AV conduction were randomized to undergo single-chamber atrial pacing (110 patients) or single-chamber ventricular pacing (115 patients). Follow-up after 3 months and then yearly included measurement of the PQ interval and, in patients with atrial pacemakers, determination of the atrial stimulus–Q intervals at pacing rates of 100 and 120 bpm. The occurrence of AV block in the atrial group was recorded. During follow-up (mean, 5.5±2.4 years), there was no change in PQ interval in either group and no change in atrial stimulus–Q intervals or Wenckebach block point in the atrial group. Four of 110 patients in th...

Bernard J. Gersh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Long-term survival after permanent pacemaker implantation for Sick Sinus Syndrome
    The American journal of cardiology, 1994
    Co-Authors: Robert T. Tung, Win Kuang Shen, David L. Hayes, Stephen C. Hammill, Kent R. Bailey, Bernard J. Gersh
    Abstract:

    Abstract In this population-based study, long-term survival and prognostic factors were examined in 148 patients, 55 men and 93 women, from Olmsted County, Minnesota, who had permanent pacemaker implantation for Sick Sinus Syndrome between 1969 and 1991. The overall survival for patients who had received a permanent pacemaker for Sick Sinus Syndrome was significantly worse than that of an age- and sex-matched control population (p

Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • atrioventricular conduction during long term follow up of patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome
    Circulation, 1998
    Co-Authors: Henning Rud Andersen, Leif Thuesen, Thomas Vesterlund, Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen, Jens Cosedis Nielsen, Anders Kirstein Pedersen, Peter Thomas Mortensen
    Abstract:

    Background—It has been claimed that patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome have an increased risk of developing AV block, but this has never been assessed prospectively. The aim of the present study was to evaluate in a prospective trial AV conduction during the long-term follow-up of patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome. Methods—Two hundred twenty-five consecutive patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome and intact AV conduction were randomized to undergo single-chamber atrial pacing (110 patients) or single-chamber ventricular pacing (115 patients). Follow-up after 3 months and then yearly included measurement of the PQ interval and, in patients with atrial pacemakers, determination of the atrial stimulus–Q intervals at pacing rates of 100 and 120 bpm. The occurrence of AV block in the atrial group was recorded. During follow-up (mean, 5.5±2.4 years), there was no change in PQ interval in either group and no change in atrial stimulus–Q intervals or Wenckebach block point in the atrial group. Four of 110 patients in th...

  • Sick Sinus Syndrome. Pacemaker with atrial versus ventricular stimulation
    Ugeskrift for laeger, 1996
    Co-Authors: Henning Rud Andersen, Leif Thuesen, Jens Peder Bagger, Thomas Vesterlund, Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen
    Abstract:

    In patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome, single chamber atrial pacing has been reported in retrospective studies to be associated with lower frequencies of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolism, heart failure, and mortality than ventricular pacing. We did a prospective randomised trial in 225 consecutive patients (142 women, 83 men; mean age 76 years) with the Sick Sinus Syndrome, randomised to atrial (n = 110) or ventricular (n = 115) pacing and followed for up to five years (mean 40 [SD 18] months). During follow-up, the frequency of atrial fibrillation was higher in the ventricular group. Thromboembolic events (stroke or peripheral arterial embolus) occurred in 20 patients in the ventricular group and in six patients in the atrial group (p = 0.008). Twenty five patients died in the ventricular group compared with 21 in the atrial group (p = 0.74). The number of cases of heart failure did not differ between the two groups. Atrioventricular block occurred in two patients in the atrial group. It is concluded that patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome should be treated with atrial pacing rather than ventricular pacing because atrial pacing is associated with lower frequencies of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolic complications, and a low risk of atrioventricular block.

  • prospective randomised trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing in Sick Sinus Syndrome
    The Lancet, 1994
    Co-Authors: Henning Rud Andersen, Leif Thuesen, Jens Peder Bagger, Thomas Vesterlund, Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen
    Abstract:

    Abstract Summary In patients with Sick-Sinus Syndrome, single-chamber atrial pacing has been reported, in retrospective studies, to be associated with lower frequencies of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolism, heart failure, and mortality than ventricular pacing; although single-chamber ventricular pacing is most commonly used. We did a prospective randomised trial in 225 consecutive patients (142 women, 83 men; mean age 76 years) with the Sick-Sinus Syndrome, randomised to atrial (n=110) or ventricular (n=115) pacing and followed for up to 5 years (mean 40 [SD 18] months). During follow-up, the frequency of atrial fibrillation was higher in the ventricular group, except at the first follow-up at 3 months. Thromboembolic events (stroke or peripheral arterial embolus) occurred in 20 patients in the ventricular group and in 6 patients in the atrial group (p=0·0083). 25 patients died in the ventricular group compared with 21 in the atrial group (p=0·74). Heart failure estimated by the New York Heart Association classification and by the daily doses of diuretics did not differ between the two groups. Atrioventricular block occurred in 2 patients in the atrial group. Patients with Sick-Sinus Syndrome should be treated with atrial pacing rather than ventricular pacing because atrial pacing is associated with lower frequencies of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolic complications, and a low risk of atrioventricular block.

Thomas Vesterlund - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • atrioventricular conduction during long term follow up of patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome
    Circulation, 1998
    Co-Authors: Henning Rud Andersen, Leif Thuesen, Thomas Vesterlund, Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen, Jens Cosedis Nielsen, Anders Kirstein Pedersen, Peter Thomas Mortensen
    Abstract:

    Background—It has been claimed that patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome have an increased risk of developing AV block, but this has never been assessed prospectively. The aim of the present study was to evaluate in a prospective trial AV conduction during the long-term follow-up of patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome. Methods—Two hundred twenty-five consecutive patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome and intact AV conduction were randomized to undergo single-chamber atrial pacing (110 patients) or single-chamber ventricular pacing (115 patients). Follow-up after 3 months and then yearly included measurement of the PQ interval and, in patients with atrial pacemakers, determination of the atrial stimulus–Q intervals at pacing rates of 100 and 120 bpm. The occurrence of AV block in the atrial group was recorded. During follow-up (mean, 5.5±2.4 years), there was no change in PQ interval in either group and no change in atrial stimulus–Q intervals or Wenckebach block point in the atrial group. Four of 110 patients in th...

  • Sick Sinus Syndrome. Pacemaker with atrial versus ventricular stimulation
    Ugeskrift for laeger, 1996
    Co-Authors: Henning Rud Andersen, Leif Thuesen, Jens Peder Bagger, Thomas Vesterlund, Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen
    Abstract:

    In patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome, single chamber atrial pacing has been reported in retrospective studies to be associated with lower frequencies of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolism, heart failure, and mortality than ventricular pacing. We did a prospective randomised trial in 225 consecutive patients (142 women, 83 men; mean age 76 years) with the Sick Sinus Syndrome, randomised to atrial (n = 110) or ventricular (n = 115) pacing and followed for up to five years (mean 40 [SD 18] months). During follow-up, the frequency of atrial fibrillation was higher in the ventricular group. Thromboembolic events (stroke or peripheral arterial embolus) occurred in 20 patients in the ventricular group and in six patients in the atrial group (p = 0.008). Twenty five patients died in the ventricular group compared with 21 in the atrial group (p = 0.74). The number of cases of heart failure did not differ between the two groups. Atrioventricular block occurred in two patients in the atrial group. It is concluded that patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome should be treated with atrial pacing rather than ventricular pacing because atrial pacing is associated with lower frequencies of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolic complications, and a low risk of atrioventricular block.

  • prospective randomised trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing in Sick Sinus Syndrome
    The Lancet, 1994
    Co-Authors: Henning Rud Andersen, Leif Thuesen, Jens Peder Bagger, Thomas Vesterlund, Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen
    Abstract:

    Abstract Summary In patients with Sick-Sinus Syndrome, single-chamber atrial pacing has been reported, in retrospective studies, to be associated with lower frequencies of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolism, heart failure, and mortality than ventricular pacing; although single-chamber ventricular pacing is most commonly used. We did a prospective randomised trial in 225 consecutive patients (142 women, 83 men; mean age 76 years) with the Sick-Sinus Syndrome, randomised to atrial (n=110) or ventricular (n=115) pacing and followed for up to 5 years (mean 40 [SD 18] months). During follow-up, the frequency of atrial fibrillation was higher in the ventricular group, except at the first follow-up at 3 months. Thromboembolic events (stroke or peripheral arterial embolus) occurred in 20 patients in the ventricular group and in 6 patients in the atrial group (p=0·0083). 25 patients died in the ventricular group compared with 21 in the atrial group (p=0·74). Heart failure estimated by the New York Heart Association classification and by the daily doses of diuretics did not differ between the two groups. Atrioventricular block occurred in 2 patients in the atrial group. Patients with Sick-Sinus Syndrome should be treated with atrial pacing rather than ventricular pacing because atrial pacing is associated with lower frequencies of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolic complications, and a low risk of atrioventricular block.