Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 15, 2026

Benefits of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in an Asynchronous Heart Failure Model Induced by Left Bundle Branch Ablation and Rapid Pacing
Published on: December 11, 2017
Long-term survival of VDD pacing
R Chamberlain-Webber1, E Barnes, M Papouchado
1Cardiology Department, Bristol Royal Infirmary, United Kingdom. mdrxcw@bristol.ac.uk
Insights
Reprogramming VDD pacing systems is uncommon, typically due to atrial arrhythmias or sensing issues. VDD pacing is a viable long-term alternative to DDD pacing when atrial chronotropy is adequate.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Biomedical Engineering
Background:
- Ventricular-inhibited, Atrial-inhibited, and Dual-chamber pacing (DDD) systems are common for bradycardia.
- Ventricular-inhibited, Dual-chamber, Pacing (VDD) systems offer an alternative, but their long-term performance and reprogramming needs require evaluation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the frequency and reasons for reprogramming VDD pacing systems.
- To compare patient characteristics and outcomes between VDD systems that required reprogramming and those that did not.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of patients with VDD systems implanted at a tertiary pacing center.
- Data collected included pacing indications, follow-up duration, rate response settings, reasons for programming changes, and implant P wave amplitudes.
- Patients were categorized into those with no mode change (NMC) and those with mode change (MC) during follow-up.
Main Results:
- 335 VDD leads in 316 patients were analyzed with a mean follow-up of 24.1 months.
- Reprogramming (MC group, n=36) was infrequent, primarily due to atrial arrhythmias (e.g., AF/atrial flutter) or atrial sensing issues.
- MC patients were significantly more likely to have rate response programmed ON (44.4% vs. 22.1%).
Conclusions:
- Reprogramming of VDD systems is infrequent and usually driven by atrial arrhythmias or sensing failures.
- When atrial chronotropy is adequate, VDD pacing is a suitable long-term alternative to DDD pacing.
- VDD systems demonstrate good long-term survival and performance.
Unlabelled:
All patients with VDD systems implanted at a tertiary pacing center were identified from a computer database and data collected on pacing indications, follow-up duration, rate response, reasons for programming changes, and implant P wave amplitudes.
Results:
366 implants were identified for which complete data were available for 335 leads implanted in 316 patients. The mean follow-up period was 24.1 months, and age at implant was 73.5 +/- 11.8 years. During follow-up, 19 patients died (6%) and 62 (19.6%) were followed elsewhere. Indications for pacing were complete heart block, 56.6%; intermittent AV block, 21.8%; postablation complete heart block, 5.4%; 2:1 AV block, 13%; and others, 3.2%. Two groups: no mode change (NMC, n = 280) and mode change (MC, n = 36) were identified. Reasons for reprogramming in the MC group were as follows: atrial sensing, 11; AF/atrial flutter, 18; chronotropic incompetence, 3; and others 4. Significantly more MC patients had rate response programmed ON (44.4% vs 22.1%, P < 0.05). No significant differences between the two groups were found in other variables, including male gender (55.5% vs 54.6%), length of follow-up (27.1 +/- 17.8 vs 23.8 +/- 20.6 months), age at last follow-up (72 +/- 12.3 vs 75.9 +/- 11.9 years), and P wave amplitude (1.7 +/- 0.9 vs 1.8 +/- 0.9 mV).
Conclusion:
Reprogramming of VDD systems is infrequent. When necessary, it is usually prompted by atrial arrhythmias or failure of atrial sensing. When adequate atrial chronotropy has been verified, VDD is an acceptable alternative to DDD pacing and survives well over the long term.
Related Concept Videos
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Mitral Stenosis IV: Nursing Management
Dysrhythmias VI: Management of Dysrhythmias
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy VI: Nursing Management

