房室间期自动搜索功能对心室起搏及心功能的影响

目的 观察自动AV间期搜索功能双腔起搏器减少心室起搏和高频心房事件的效果及对心功能的影响.方法 60例置入DDD/R起搏器的患者（有AV搜索功能30例,无AV搜索功能30例）,术后1年内程控获取右室起搏百分比、高频心房事件,检查超声心动图,测试血浆利钠肽（BNP）值.结果 有AV搜索功能组术后6个月和12个月右室起搏百分比明显小于无AV搜索功能组[（21.2±6.0）％比（78.3±7.5）％,（19.1±6.5）％比（73.4±7.9）％,P均＜0.05）.AV搜索功能组左室射血分数、左室Tei指数均明显改善（0.57±0.03比0.53±0.05,0.48±0.15比0.68±0.20,P均＜0.05）;BNP水平明显降低[（75.2±34.5）pg/ml）比（37.0±16.4）pg/ml,P＜0.05];高频心房事件也显著减少[（42±10）次比（19±11）次,P＜0.05].结论 AV自动搜索功能起搏器可有效减少不必要的右室起搏及高频心房事件,改善血流动力学效应.     

具有自动房室间期搜索功能的双腔起搏器的临床随访

目的: 观察具有自动房室(AV)间期搜索功能的双腔起搏器减少心室起搏的有效性及起搏器长期的参数变化及安全性。方法: 对两种DDD/R起搏器86例(有搜索功能40例,无搜索功能46例)患者术后半年内随访观察。结果: 有搜索功能组术后1、3、6个月右室起搏率明显小于无搜索功能组［(20±6)% vs. (78±12)%,(18±7)% vs. (73±9)%,(19±5)% vs. (76±9),均P<0.05］。两组起搏参数及患者心功能分级均无明显差异。随访期间未出现AV搜索功能障碍等情况。结论: 有AV搜索功能DDD/R起搏器可减少非必须的心室起搏,安全可靠。     

房室间期自动搜索功能起搏器对病窦综合征患者预后的影响

目的观察自动AV间期搜索功能双腔起搏器减少心室起搏的有效性及对心功能和快速房性心律失常的影响。方法 100例植入DDD/R起搏器的患者(有AV搜索功能50例,无AV搜索功能50例),术后1年内程控获取右室起搏百分比、高频心房事件、检查超声心动图及测试血浆心房利钠肽(ANP)值。结果有AV搜索功能组术后3,6,12个月右室起搏百分比明显小于无AV搜索功能组(18.7%±5.6%vs 82.4%±10.2%,19.8%±6.6%vs 77.3%±9.5%,18.4%±7.3%vs 79.2%±8.6%,P均<0.05)。有AV搜索功能组左室舒张末内径、左房内径、左室射血分数均明显改善(P均<0.05);ANP水平明显降低(203.10±28.20 pg/ml vs 298.80±31.50 pg/ml,P<0.05);高频心房事件也显著减少(18±9次vs 39±11次,P<0.05)。结论有AV搜索功能起搏器明显减少病窦综合征患者右室起搏比例,改善心功能,并减少高频心房事件。     

心室起搏管理功能降低病窦综合征患者高比例的右室起搏

目的评估具有心室起搏管理(MVP)功能的双腔起搏器对高比例右室起搏的病窦综合征(SSS)患者的疗效。方法 35例SSS患者,房室传导正常或合并间歇性房室传导阻滞(AVB),至少植入了两年双腔起搏器(DDD/R),并计划更换,入组前1个月以上的心室起搏比例超过40%。均植入具有MVP功能的双腔起搏器,随机程控MVP启动(MVP on组,n=17)或者关闭(MVP off组,n=18)。术前、术后6个月行血浆脑钠肽(BNP)测定;心脏超声测定左室收缩末期内径(LVESD),左室舒张末期内径(LVEDD),左室射血分数(LVEF);并于术后6个月程控起搏器了解右室起搏比例、心房高频事件。结果术前两组血浆BNP及LVESD、LVEDD、LVEF比较无显著差异(P>0.05);术后两组有关心脏超声指标无明显变化(P>0.05)。MVP on组术后较术前血浆BNP有明显下降(P﹤0.05),与MVP off组比较,MVP on组术后右室起搏百分比、心房高频事件发生率均有显著下降(2.6%±0.6%vs 48.4%±10.5%,15.7%±2.3%vs 62.0%±7.8%;P﹤0.01)。结论具有MVP功能的DDD/R起搏器能降低高比例右室起搏的SSS的右室起搏比例及心房高频事件的发生率。     

双腔起搏器自动房室间期搜索功能的临床应用观察

目的观察双腔起搏器自动AV间期搜索功能(auto AV search)减少心室起搏的有效性及对心功能和快速房性心律失常的影响。方法43例植入具有自动AV间期搜索功能的双腔DDD(R)起搏器的患者,术后6个月内随机交叉关闭或打开AV search功能各3个月,分别在第一阶段(3个月末)、第二阶段(6个月末)程控获取心室起搏百分比(Vp)、高频心房事件及测试血浆BNP值。结果43例患者按计划完成随访,AV search关闭组心室起搏(VP)比例为78.0±10.3%,心房高频事件为58±15次,血浆脑钠肽(BNP)水平为333±30pg/ml;AVsearch打开组Vp比例为15.9±4.8%,心房高频事件为29±13次,BNP65±21 pg/ml,两者相比具有显著统计学差异(P<0.01)。结论双腔起搏器的auto AV search功能可有效减少非必须的心室起搏,促进自身心室激动。     

不同起搏模式对老年患者B型钠尿肽及相关神经内分泌激素水平的影响

目的观察置入具有工作模式转换功能的双腔起搏器术后心室起搏百分比与血浆B型钠尿肽(BNP)及相关神经内分泌激素水平的关系。方法选择置入双腔起搏器的老年患者22例,分为A组11例,D组11例。采用自身前后对照研究方法,观察同一患者在心房按需型起搏(AAI)SafeR和房室全能型起搏(DDD)2种工作模式下的心室起搏百分比,检测患者血浆BNP、肾素活性、血管紧张素Ⅱ、醛固酮水平,并分析两者之间的关系。结果与术前比较,所有患者术后血浆BNP水平明显升高(P<0.05)。与AAISafeR模式比较,A组、D组DDD模式时患者血浆BNP水平明显升高(P<0.05)。与DDD模式比较,AAISafeR模式下心室感知百分比明显增加[(73.18±13.08)%vs(34.69±9.02)%,P<0.05],心室起搏百分比明显减少[(23.11±7.05)%vs(73.24±11.38)%,P<0.05]。相关分析显示,心室起搏百分比与血浆BNP水平呈正相关(r=0.158,P<0.01)。结论 AAISafeR模式可有效减少心室起搏百分比,心室起搏可能产生起搏依赖性的心功能损害。     

心脏起搏器自动化功能对老年患者心功能的影响

目的观察具有自动AV间期搜索和起搏模式策略自动化功能的双腔心脏起搏器对老年患者减少心室起搏的有效性。方法选择置入DDD/R型双腔心脏起搏器的老年病态窦房结综合征(SSS)患者123例,分为实验组66例,平均年龄(76.5±6.8)岁,置入具备自动AV间期搜索和模式策略功能的美敦力公司Adapta系列起搏器;对照组57例,平均年龄(73.1±7.4)岁,置入不具备上述2种功能的美敦力公司Sigma AED、MED系列起搏器。术后1年内随访,观察心功能(NYHA)、程控获取右心室起搏(VP)百分比、心脏彩色超声心动科进行左心房内径(LAD)、左心室舒张末内径(LVEDD)的测量,计算LVEF,抽血检测N末端前体钠尿肽(NT-proBNP)水平,并进行对比。结果与对照组比较,实验组术后1年VP百分比降低[(39.7±35.2)%vs(91.7±2.6)%,P=0.02],LVEDD、LAD、LVEF均明显改善,差异有统计学意义[(51.5±3.9)mmvs(53.9±3.6)mm,(38.2±2.6)mmvs(42.0±4.5)mm,(54.8±7.7)%vs(50.1±12.3)%,P<0.05,P<0.01),实验组术后1年NT-proBNP水平较对照组明显降低[(180.2±19.4)ng/Lvs(269.2±23.6)ng/L,P<0.01]。结论具有起搏自动AV间期搜索和模式策略自动化功能的双腔起搏器可减少老年SSS患者VP百分比,改善心功能。     

双腔起搏房室间期自动搜索功能对心室起搏及心功能的影响

选择30例接受具有自动AV间期搜索功能(auto AV search)的双腔DDD(R)起搏器治疗的病窦综合征患者。AV search打开时心室起搏(VP)比例,血浆脑钠肽(BNP)水平,左室Tei指数均较关闭时降低(P均<0.01),且血浆BNP水平、左室Tei指数与VP比例均存在较好的相关性(P均<0.05)。结论:双腔起搏器的auto AVsearch功能可有效减少非必须的右室起搏,促进自身心室激动,改善患者血流动力学效应。     

起搏器最小化心室起搏功能对心脏重构和心房颤动发生率的影响

目的观察双腔起搏器最小化心室起搏功能对患者心力衰竭和心房颤动(房颤)发生率的影响。方法选择青岛阜外医院心脏中心32例具备心室起搏管理(MVP)、房室间期自动搜索(Search AV+)或心室自身优先(VIP)功能的双腔起搏器患者为试验组,开启最小化心室起搏功能,30例不具备MVP、Search AV+或VIP功能的双腔起搏器患者设为对照组,延长房室间期至固定值。于术后1周,12个月,24个月进行起搏器程控、超声心电图、临床心功能评价和实验室检查,观察患者心脏结构、功能以及房颤发生率的变化。结果试验组32例(男性15例),年龄72.6±7.2岁;对照组30例(男性14例),年龄76.4±8.5岁。与对照组比较,试验组患者心室起搏比例明显降低[(26.2±20.1)%vs.(59.2±21.4%),P0.01],NT-pro BNP[(234±87)pg/ml vs.(876±134)pg/ml,P0.050]和内皮素[(1.5±0.08)ng/L vs.(5.6±0.10)ng/L,P0.05]水平更低;左房内径[(39.8±6.4)mm vs.(43.5±7.8)mm,P0.050]和左室舒张末内径[(54.7±5.7)mm vs.(60.7±6.4)mm,P0.05]较小;射血分数[(0.52±0.04)%vs.(0.48±0.05)%,P0.05]较大;房颤负荷[(9.2±8.5)min/d vs.(45.8±23.1)min/d,P0.010]较轻。结论双腔起搏器开启最小化心室起搏功能,通过减少心室起搏比例,能够减少房颤发作以及保护心功能。     

不同起搏模式对减少心室起搏比例的临床观察

目的 观察患者置入具有工作模式转换功能的双腔起搏器对减少右心室起搏的临床疗效.方法 入选符合双腔起搏器置入指征的患者126例,采用随机、单盲、自身前后交叉对照研究方法,观察同一患者在心房按需型起搏模式(AAISafeR)和房室全能型起搏模式(DDD)2种工作模式下心室起搏百分比的比例,随访3个月.进行ECG和超声心动图的检查,分析心室起搏百分比与心房的相关性.结果 与DDD比较,AAISafeR模式下心室感知百分比明显增加(34.61±9.82)%vs(73.18±13.08)%,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),心室起搏百分比明显减少(83.71±11.76)%vs(23.61±7.05)%,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),AAISafeR模式减少右心室起搏60.1%.相关分析显示,左心室舒张末径与心室起搏百分比呈正相关(r=0.398,P=0.0003),LVEF与心室起搏百分比之问无显著相关关系(r=-0.13,P=0.26).结论 AAISafeR模式可有效减少心室起搏百分比,可能影响心腔结构短期内重构,但尚未引起心室功能的改变.     

Multicenter, prospective, randomized safety and efficacy study of a new atrial-based managed ventricular pacing mode (MVP) in dual chamber ICDs

BACKGROUND: Ventricular desynchronization caused by right ventricular pacing may impair ventricular function and increase risk of heart failure (CHF), atrial fibrillation (AF), and death. Conventional DDD/R mode often results in high cumulative percentage ventricular pacing (Cum%VP). We hypothesized that a new managed ventricular pacing mode (MVP) would safely provide AAI/R pacing with ventricular monitoring and DDD/R during AV block (AVB) and reduce Cum%VP compared to DDD/R. METHODS: MVP RAMware was downloaded in 181 patients with Marquis DR ICDs. Patients were initially randomized to either MVP or DDD/R for 1 month, then crossed over to the opposite mode for 1 month. ICD diagnostics were analyzed for cumulative percentage atrial pacing (Cum%AP), Cum%VP, and duration of DDD/R pacing for spontaneous AVB. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics included age 66 +/- 12 years, EF 36 +/- 14%, and NYHA Class II-III 36%. Baseline PR interval was 190 +/- 53 msec and programmed AV intervals (DDD/R) were 216 +/- 50 (paced)/189 +/- 53 (sensed) msec. Mean Cum%VP was significantly lower in MVP versus DDD/R (4.1 +/- 16.3 vs 73.8 +/- 32.5, P < 0.0001). The median absolute and relative reductions in Cum%VP during MVP were 85.0 and 99.9, respectively. Mean Cum%AP was not different between MVP versus DDD/R (48.7 +/- 38.5 vs 47.3 +/- 38.4, P = 0.83). During MVP overall time spent in AAI/R was 89.6% (intrinsic conduction), DDD/R 6.7% (intermittent AVB), and DDI/R 3.7% (AF). No adverse events were attributed to MVP. CONCLUSIONS: MVP safely achieves functional atrial pacing by limiting ventricular pacing to periods of intermittent AVB and AF in ICD patients, significantly reducing Cum%VP compared to DDD/R. MVP is a universal pacing mode that adapts to AVB and AF, providing both atrial pacing and ventricular pacing support when needed.     

Randomized pilot study of a new atrial-based minimal ventricular pacing mode in dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that a new minimal ventricular pacing mode (MVP) that provides AAI/R pacing with ventricular monitoring and back-up DDD/R pacing as needed during AV block (AVB) would significantly reduce cumulative percent ventricular pacing compared to DDD/R. BACKGROUND: Conventional DDD/R mode often results in high cumulative percent ventricular pacing that may adversely affect ventricular function and increase risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation. METHODS: MVP was made operational in 30 patients with DDD/R implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and no history of AVB. Patients were randomized to one week each in DDD/R and MVP. Holter monitor recordings (ECG, intracardiac electrograms, and event markers) and device diagnostics were analyzed for cumulative % atrial paced (Cum%AP), cumulative percent ventricular pacing, and frequency and duration of DDD/R pacing back-up. Diaries were used to report symptoms. RESULTS: Age of the study population was 61 years +/- 12 years and 83% were male. Baseline PR interval was 204 ms +/- 32 ms and programmed AV intervals (DDD/R) were 200 ms +/- 50 ms (paced)/167 ms +/- 54 ms (sensed). Cum%AP was similar between MVP and DDD/R (47.9 +/- 37 vs 46.3 +/- 36). Cumulative percent ventricular pacing was significantly lower in MVP vs DDD/R (3.79 +/- 16.3 vs 80.6 +/- 33.8, P < .0001). Back-up DDD/R pacing during MVP operation due to transient AVB occurred in 10% of patients (9.3 +/- 7.4 [range 1-15] episodes/patient-day, duration 39.7 minutes +/- 156 minutes). Fifteen percent of AV intervals during MVP operation exceeded 300 ms. No significant symptoms were reported during MVP operation. CONCLUSIONS: MVP dramatically reduced cumulative percent ventricular pacing compared to DDD/R while maintaining AV synchrony and providing sensor-modulated atrial pacing support. Intermittent oscillations between MVP and DDD/R during transient AV block appeared safe and well tolerated.     

应用实时三维超声心动图评价DDD模式 右心室不同部位起搏对左心功能的影响

目的探讨应用实时三维超声心动图评价房室顺序双心腔起搏、感知触发和抑制型(DDD)模式右心室不同部位起搏对左心功能的影响。方法 20例DDD模式起搏器植入患者行右心室电极室间隔(RVS)及右心室心尖部(RVA)起搏,其中最终10例行RVS起搏,10例行RVA起搏。术后应用实时三维超声心动图随访6个月及1年,观察左心功能变化,检测指标包括:左心室射血分数(LVEF)、每搏量(SV)、左心室舒张末期容积(LVEDV)、收缩末期容积(LVESV)。结果术后6个月,RVS起搏组10例患者LVEF 54%±5%、SV(46.2±6.8)ml与术前LVEF 53%±6%、SV(43.2±5.4)ml比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),RVA起搏组10例患者INEF46%±6%、SV(34.3±5.8)ml与术前INEF 54%±8%、sV(42.3±6.8)ml比较均减低(P0.05),此时两组LV-EDV、LVESV较术前变化差异不明显;术后1年随访,RVS起搏组10例患者LVEF 54%±6%、SV(44.1±8.4)ml与术前比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05),RVA起搏组10例患者LVEF 43%±9%、SV(31.5±8.2)ml与术后6个月比较进一步减低(P0.05),RVS起搏组LVEDV、LVESV较术前仍变化不明显(P0.05),RVA起搏组10例患者LVEDV(71.2±8.1)ml、LVESV(41.8±6.1)ml均较术前LVEDV(68.5±10.7)ml、LVESV(27.1±3.4)ml增大。结论长期的RVS起搏对左心功能无明显影响,而RVA起搏可降低左心功能,并造成左心室重构的风险加大。     

一种新的双腔起搏模式——AAISafeR与DDD模式的对比临床研究

目的评价存在自身房室传导置入双腔起搏器的患者,分别以DDD模式和AAISafeR模式工作3个月后心室起搏百分比以及临床指标。方法因病窦综合征置入Ela Symphony D 2450 DR2550系列双腔起搏器的患者30例,随机分为两组DDD组和AAISafeR组,3个月后交叉程控为AAISafeR和DDD,再随访3个月。结果没有观察到与AAISafeR有关的不良反应;AAISafeR模式能显著降低心室起搏的百分比51.3%(2%～91%)与0.9%(0～3%),(P=0.001);2.94%(0～18%)与41.18%(0～65%),(P=0.000);DDD模式工作3个月,左房直径、左室舒张末径、左室收缩末径均比术前增加,左室射血分数降低,差异有显著性,AAI SafeR模式工作3个月,除左房内径明显增大外,其余指标无明显改变;30例患者,在6个月的随访中,21例因不同程度的房室传导阻滞,AAI模式暂时转换为DDD模式。结论AAISafeR起搏模式能够有效降低心室起搏的百分比;AAISafeR起搏模式能够在出现房室传导阻滞的情况下,迅速安全的转换为DDD模式。     

Relative importance of activation sequence compared to atrioventricular synchrony in left ventricular function

This study evaluated the relative hemodynamic importance of a normal left ventricular (LV) activation sequence compared to atrioventricular (AV) synchrony with respect to systolic and diastolic function. Twelve patients with intact AV conduction and AV sequential pacemakers underwent radionuclide studies at rest and Doppler echocardiographic studies at rest and during submaximal exercise, comparing atrial demand pacing (AAI) to sequential AV sensing pacing (DDD) and ventricular demand pacing (VVI). Studies at rest were performed at a constant heart rate between pacing modes, and the exercise study was performed at a constant heart rate and work load. Cardiac output was higher during AAI than during both DDD and VVI (6.2 +/- 1 vs 5.6 +/- 1 and 5.3 +/- 1 liters/min, p less than 0.05). LV ejection fraction was likewise higher during AAI (55 +/- 12 vs 49 +/- 11 vs 51 +/- 13, p less than 0.05). VVI with or without AV synchrony was associated with a paradoxical septal motion pattern, resulting in a 25% impairment of regional septal ejection fraction. In addition, LV contraction duration was more homogenous during AAI. Peak filling rate during AAI and VVI was higher than during DDD (2.86 +/- 1 and 2.95 +/- 1 vs 2.25 +/- 1 end-diastolic volume/s; p less than 0.05). During VVI, the time to peak filling was significantly shorter than during both AAI and DDD (165 +/- 34 vs 239 +/- 99 and 224 +/- 99 ms; p less than 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Severe atrioventricular decoupling, uncoupling, and ventriculoatrial coupling during enhanced atrial pacing: incidence, mechanisms, and implications for minimizing right ventricular pacing in ICD patients

Background: Enhanced AAI/R pacing minimizes right ventricular pacing but may permit or induce AV decoupling (AV‐DC) due to unrestricted AV intervals (AVIs). The purpose of this study was to characterize and quantify AVI behavior in a randomized trial of enhanced AAI/R pacing in ICD patients. Methods: One hundred twenty‐one patients in the Marquis ICD MVP? Study, a randomized 1‐month crossover comparison of cumulative% ventricular pacing (Cum%VP) in enhanced AAIR (MVP) vs DDD/R, were analyzed. AV‐DC was defined as ≥40% AVIs >300 ms; VA coupling (VA‐C) was defined as%V‐atrial pace (AP) intervals <300 ms. Dynamic AVI behavior and increases in Cum%VP due to AV block (AV uncoupling, AV‐UC) were characterized using Holters with real‐time ICD telemetry. Results: AV‐DC occurred in 17 (14%) of patients. Baseline PR, amiodarone, nighttime, lower rate >60 beats/min, rate response, and Cum%AP were associated with longer AVIs. Logistic regression identified baseline PR (odds ratio [OR]= 1.024, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.007–1.042; P = 0.005), and Cum%AP (OR = 1.089, 95% CI 1.027–1.154; P = 0.004) as predictors of AV‐DC. AV‐DC was associated with ≈10‐fold increases in both Cum%VP (13.6 ± 28.3% vs 1.2 ± 3.9%; P = 0.023) due to transient AV‐UC) and VA‐C (6.0 ± 17.5% vs 0.5 ± 1.2%, P = 0.028). AV coupling (<40% AVIs >300 ms) was preserved in 104 (86%) patients. Conclusions: AV‐DC, VA‐C, and AV‐UC may be worsened or induced by enhanced AAI/R pacing. Conservative programming of lower rate and rate response should reduce the risk of AV‐DC by reducing Cum%AP.