Clinical Outcomes Following PM Implantation: A 3-Year Comparative Study of Sick Sinus Syndrome and Atrioventricular Block Resultados Clínicos após Implante de Marca-Passo: Um Estudo Comparativo de 3 Anos entre Síndrome do Nó Sinusal e Bloqueio Atrioventricular
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, cilt.123, sa.5, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 123 Sayı: 5
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.36660/abc.20250751i
- Dergi Adı: Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, EMBASE, Directory of Open Access Journals
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Artificial Pacemaker, Atrial Fibrillation, Atrioventricular Block, Sick Sinus Syndrome
- Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
- Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Background: Permanent pacemaker implantation is an established treatment for both sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and atrioventricular block (AVB), yet limited data exist comparing long-term clinical outcomes and cardiac remodeling patterns between these distinct bradyarrhythmic etiologies. Objectives: To compare three-year clinical outcomes and cardiac structural changes between SSS and AVB patients following permanent pacemaker implantation. Methods: This retrospective observational study enrolled 192 adult patients (65 SSS, 127 AVB) who underwent pacemaker implantation between January 2018 and December 2020. Demographic data, echocardiographic parameters, pacemaker-recorded data, and clinical outcomes were assessed at baseline, one month, six months, one year, and three years. Primary outcomes included changes in cardiac structure and function, symptomatic improvement, new-onset atrial fibrillation, rehospitalization, and all-cause mortality. Results: Both groups demonstrated significant declines in left ventricular ejection fraction over three years (SSS: 57.2±6.0% to 54.3±8.3%, p<0.001; AVB: 55.5±7.0% to 53.0±6.8%, p<0.001). Despite similar ventricular dysfunction progression, distinct remodeling patterns emerged: SSS patients exhibited significant increases in left atrial diameter (31.3 to 38.8 mm, p=0.040), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (45.2 to 51.0 mm, p<0.001), and mitral regurgitation prevalence (26.2% to 64.6%), while AVB patients maintained stable chamber dimensions despite high ventricular pacing burden (>90%). Symptomatic improvement was comparable (SSS: 85.6% vs. AVB: 83.5%, p=0.84), as were new-onset atrial fibrillation (41.5% vs. 37.0%, p=0.54), rehospitalization (50.8% vs. 58.3%, p=0.38), and all-cause mortality (13.8% vs. 11.8%, p=0.69). Mortality predictors differed: mitral regurgitation severity in SSS versus coronary artery disease, beta-blocker therapy, and left atrial volume in AVB patients. Conclusions: Despite similar symptomatic benefits and clinical outcomes, SSS and AVB patients demonstrate distinct cardiac remodeling patterns and different mortality predictors, supporting the need for etiology-specific follow-up strategies in pacemaker recipients.