Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 520

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Minimizing Ventricular Pacing to Reduce Atrial Fibrillation in Sinus-Node Disease

Sweeney, Michael O., Bank, Alan J., Nsah, Emmanuel, Koullick, Maria, Zeng, Qian Cathy, Hettrick, Douglas, Sheldon, Todd, Lamas, Gervasio A.·2007·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conventional dual-chamber pacing maintains atrioventricular synchrony but results in high percentages of ventricular pacing, which causes ventricular desynchronization and has been linked to an increased risk of atrial fibrillation in patients with sinus-node disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1065 patients with sinus-node disease, intact atrioventricular conduction, and a normal QRS interval to receive conventional dual-chamber pacing (535 patients) or dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing with the use of new pacemaker features designed to promote atrioventricular conduction, preserve ventricular conduction, and prevent ventricular desynchronization (530 patients). The primary end point was time to persistent atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) follow-up period was 1.7+/-1.0 years when the trial was stopped because it had met the primary end point. The median percentage of ventricular beats that were paced was lower in dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing than in conventional dual-chamber pacing (9.1% vs. 99.0%, P<0.001), whereas the percentage of atrial beats that were paced was similar in the two groups (71.4% vs. 70.4%, P=0.96). Persistent atrial fibrillation developed in 110 patients, 68 (12.7%) in the group assigned to conventional dual-chamber pacing and 42 (7.9%) in the group assigned to dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing. The hazard ratio for development of persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing as compared with those with conventional dual-chamber pacing was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.88; P=0.009), indicating a 40% reduction in relative risk. The absolute reduction in risk was 4.8%. The mortality rate was similar in the two groups (4.9% in the group receiving dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing vs. 5.4% in the group receiving conventional dual-chamber pacing, P=0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing, as compared with conventional dual-chamber pacing, prevents ventricular desynchronization and moderately reduces the risk of persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with sinus-node disease. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00284830 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

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/nejmoa071880

Cites

5 of 5 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

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 5 references

Cited by

See all 520

Metadata

Authors
Sweeney, M. O., Bank, A. J., Nsah, E., Koullick, M., Zeng, Q. C., Hettrick, D., Sheldon, T., & Lamas, G. A.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2007-09-06
Volume
357
Issue
10
Pages
1000-1008
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2095280876
Cited by
520
References
5
FWCI
24.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Minimizing Ventricular Pacing to Reduce Atrial Fibrillation in Sinus-Node Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa071880
The paper
Sweeney, M. O., Bank, A. J., Nsah, E., Koullick, M., Zeng, Q. C., Hettrick, D., Sheldon, T., & Lamas, G. A. (2007). Minimizing Ventricular Pacing to Reduce Atrial Fibrillation in Sinus-Node Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa071880

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.