CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 775Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasCardiac Health and Mental Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Physiologic Pacing versus Ventricular Pacing on the Risk of Stroke and Death Due to Cardiovascular Causes

Open access
Connolly, Stuart J., Kerr, Charles R., Gent, Michael, Roberts, Robin S., Yusuf, Salim, Gillis, Anne M., Sami, Magdi H., Talajic, Mario, Tang, Anthony S.L., Klein, George J., Lau, Ching, Newman, David M.·2000·New England Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1056/nejm200005113421902
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that physiologic pacing (dual-chamber or atrial) may be superior to single-chamber (ventricular) pacing because it is associated with lower risks of atrial fibrillation, stroke, and death. These benefits have not been evaluated in a large, randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: At 32 Canadian centers, patients without chronic atrial fibrillation who were scheduled for a first implantation of a pacemaker to treat symptomatic bradycardia were eligible for enrollment. We randomly assigned patients to receive either a ventricular pacemaker or a physiologic pacemaker and followed them for an average of three years. The primary outcome was stroke or death due to cardiovascular causes. Secondary outcomes were death from any cause, atrial fibrillation, and hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: A total of 1474 patients were randomly assigned to receive a ventricular pacemaker and 1094 to receive a physiologic pacemaker. The annual rate of stroke or death due to cardiovascular causes was 5.5 percent with ventricular pacing, as compared with 4.9 percent with physiologic pacing (reduction in relative risk, 9.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -10.5 to 25.7 percent [the negative value indicates an increase in risk]; P=0.33). The annual rate of atrial fibrillation was significantly lower among the patients in the physiologic-pacing group (5.3 percent) than among those in the ventricular-pacing group (6.6 percent), for a reduction in relative risk of 18.0 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 0.3 to 32.6 percent; P=0.05). The effect on the rate of atrial fibrillation was not apparent until two years after implantation. The observed annual rates of death from all causes and of hospitalization for heart failure were lower among the patients with a physiologic pacemaker than among those with a ventricular pacemaker, but not significantly so (annual rates of death, 6.6 percent with ventricular pacing and 6.3 percent with physiologic pacing; annual rates of hospitalization for heart failure, 3.5 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively). There were significantly more perioperative complications with physiologic pacing than with ventricular pacing (9.0 percent vs. 3.8 percent, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physiologic pacing provides little benefit over ventricular pacing for the prevention of stroke or death due to cardiovascular causes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm200005113421902

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.2307/2281868 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Mantel N, 1966, Cancer Chemother Rep, 50, 163
  3. Wharton JM, 1998, Circulation, 98, I

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 775

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Connolly, S. J., Kerr, C. R., Gent, M., Roberts, R. S., Yusuf, S., Gillis, A. M., Sami, M. H., Talajic, M., Tang, A. S. L., Klein, G. J., Lau, C., & Newman, D. M.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Montreal Heart Institute (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Western University (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
ORCID
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Massachusetts Medical Society
Published
2000-05-11
Volume
342
Issue
19
Pages
1385-1391
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
DOI
10.1056/nejm200005113421902
OpenAlex
W2332653577
Cited by
775
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 35
FWCI
31.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
Keywords
physiological pacing, ventricular pacing, dual-chamber pacemaker, atrial pacing, bradycardia, pacemaker implantation, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, atrial fibrillation, heart failure hospitalization, perioperative complications, symptomatic bradycardia
MeSH terms
Aged, Atrial Fibrillation, Bradycardia, Cardiac Pacing, Artificial, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Heart Block, Humans, Male, Pacemaker, Artificial, Risk, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review