This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lau, C.-P. Articles by Leung, W.-H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lau, C.-P. Articles by Leung, W.-H. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Cardiac Pacemaking in Hong Kong: Report of a Survey of General Practitioners and Internists

Cardiology Division and the General Practice Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong

Chun-Ho Cheng

Cardiology Division and the General Practice Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong

Clark Munro

Cardiology Division and the General Practice Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong

Maxwell Tse

Cardiology Division and the General Practice Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong

Cheuk-Kit Wong

Cardiology Division and the General Practice Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong

Wing-Hung Leung

Cardiology Division and the General Practice Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong

A questionnaire study was carried out among cardiologists, internists, general practitioners, and final year medical students in Hong Kong concerning cardiac pacemaking. The response rate was 11.2%. Salient results include the misconception on the part of 40% and 12% of physicians, that general anesthesia and thoracotomy respectively, are commonly required for permanent pacing and that the procedure is associated with significant mortality (14.2% of physicians). Most would offer permanent pacing to patients with symptomatic complete atrioventricular block, but advanced age appeared to be considered as a barrier to permanent pacemaking. There was confusion about the need to pace asymptomatic sick sinus syndrome and bundle branch conduction diseases. Oral isoprenaline was still used to treat bradycardia by 16.6 % of physicians. A similar deficiency in knowledge was found among the students. It is suggested that misunderstanding of cardiac pacing is common and may be a reflection of the lack of emphasis in undergraduate teaching. This deficiency may have prevented some patients from receiving the benefits of permanent pacing.

Angiology, Vol. 42, No. 5, 365-371 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/000331979104200503


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?