Abstract
OBJECTIVES--To assess how the opinions of cardiologists, physicians, and general practitioners on the indications for permanent pacing compare with published guidelines, and to determine whether resources, pacing experience, and position influence referral practices. DESIGN--Anonymous postal survey by questionnaire from St Bartholomew's Hospital, London and the King's Fund Institute, London. The questionnaire established the respondent's position, resources, and previous pacing experience. Eleven clinical and electrocardiographic situations were described and respondents were asked to decide on whether pacing was indicated. The responses received were compared with the guidelines provided by the 1984 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force. PARTICIPANTS--The 630 members of the British Cardiac Society, 1370 randomly selected general physicians, and 2000 general practitioners. RESULTS--Patients with symptoms were more likely to be referred for pacing than symptom free patients regardless of underlying aetiology. In relatively symptom free patients the frequency with which pacing was recommended was low, even when it was unequivocally indicated on prognostic grounds. Failure to recommend pacing was unrelated to diagnostic facilities or referral difficulties. Respondents with pacing experience were more likely to recommend pacing. CONCLUSIONS--The physicians surveyed had a conservative approach towards recommending pacing. Most physicians were influenced predominantly by symptoms and the prognostic indications for pacing were not well appreciated.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Chokshi A. B., Friedman H. S., Malach M., Vasavada B. C., Bleicher S. J. Impact of peer review in reduction of permanent pacemaker implantations. JAMA. 1981 Aug 14;246(7):754–757. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dreifus L. S., Fisch C., Griffin J. C., Gillette P. C., Mason J. W., Parsonnet V. Guidelines for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Committee on Pacemaker Implantation). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991 Jul;18(1):1–13. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(10)80209-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Edhag O., Swahn A. Prognosis of patients with complete heart block or arrhythmic syncope who were not treated with artificial pacemakers. A long-term follow-up study of 101 patients. Acta Med Scand. 1976;200(6):457–463. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Godden D. J., MacCulloch M. S., Sandhu P. S., Kerr F. Correcting a block?: successful experience of a small British pacing centre. Br Heart J. 1987 Nov;58(5):495–498. doi: 10.1136/hrt.58.5.495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Martin A., Nathan A. W., Camm A. J. Cardiac pacing in an elderly population with a satellite clinic in a district general hospital. Age Ageing. 1985 Nov;14(6):333–338. doi: 10.1093/ageing/14.6.333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Simon A. B., Zloto A. E. Atrioventricular block: natural history after permanent ventricular pacing. Am J Cardiol. 1978 Mar;41(3):500–507. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(78)90006-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]