Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Long-term survival in dogs with heart block after VDD vs VVI pacing
By Lichtenberger, Jonathan et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary cardiology : the official journal of the European Society of Veterinary Cardiology·2015·Department of Clinical Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Long-term outcome of physiologic VDD pacing versus non-physiologic VVI pacing in dogs with high-grade atrioventricular block.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 49 dogs with high-grade atrioventricular block (a serious heart condition) received either a VDD pacemaker or a VVI pacemaker to help manage their symptoms. After the pacemakers were implanted, the average survival time for all dogs was about 24.5 months, with no significant difference in survival between the two types of pacing. While both groups had good outcomes in terms of resolving symptoms and owner satisfaction, the VDD group experienced more minor complications shortly after the procedure. Overall, both pacing methods were effective, but neither showed a clear long-term advantage over the other.
People also search for: dog heart block treatment · VDD vs VVI pacemaker for dogs · dog pacemaker complications
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcome associated with physiologic VDD and non-physiologic VVI or VVIR pacing in dogs with high-grade atrioventricular block. ANIMALS: Forty-nine paced dogs with high-grade atrioventricular block were included. METHODS: Retrospective review of medical records, thoracic radiographs and echocardiograms for all dogs. Patient owners and referring veterinarians were contacted for survival times and a satisfaction questionnaire was submitted to the owners. Survival times, complication rates, resolution of clinical signs, and owner satisfaction were compared between the pacing modalities. RESULTS: A single lead VDD pacemaker was implanted in 19 dogs (39%) whereas 30 dogs (61%) were treated with VVI pacing. The median survival time for all dogs post-pacemaker implantation was 24.5 months. Survival time was significantly decreased in dogs that were older at the time of presentation or that presented with ventricular tachycardia or reduced left ventricular fractional shortening. Median survival times after implantation were not significantly different between pacing modalities (P = 0.29). Major complication rates were 11% within the VDD group and 20% within the VVI group and were not significantly different (P = 0.46). Minor complications were significantly higher within the VDD group than within the VVI group (47% versus 7% respectively; P < 0.01) due to a higher number of dogs in the VDD group experiencing transient ventricular premature contractions in the immediate post-implantation time period. Resolution of clinical signs, owner satisfaction, and quality of life perception were considered excellent in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: No long-term clinical benefit of VDD over VVI pacing could be identified in the present study.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25726416/