带有心力衰竭预警功能的CRT-D InSync Sentry的临床应用

目的联合有心脏再同步治疗（CRT）和植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）功能的CRT-D已开始应用于临床治疗充血性心力衰竭，尤其是带有心力衰竭预警功能的InSync Sentry可以预警心功能的恶化，提示医生及早干预，减少心力衰竭的发生。本文旨在初步总结InSync Sentry的临床应用。方法6例药物治疗无效的充血性心力衰竭患者接受了CRT-D InSync Sentry治疗。其中3例患者既往有恶性室性心律失常发作史。基础病因为扩张性心肌病5例，缺血性心肌病1例。结果6例患者均成功植入InSync Sentry，平均左心室导线起搏阈值1．24V，除颤能量≤20J，无并发症发生。随访2-13个月，1例患者发生2次室性心动过速导致的电击事件；1例患者由于心功能恶化出现2次报警事件，药物治疗后好转。结论CRT-D植入相对安全，能有效预防心脏性猝死，成功预警心功能恶化，改善预后。     

慢性心力衰竭患者心脏植入CRT/CRTD起搏器后心功能状况及预后分析

目的分析慢性心力衰竭(CHF)患者CRT/CRTD植入后心功能演变状况及预后。方法选择2014年4月~2015年4月于郑州市第七人民医院心内科采用CRT/CRT-D治疗的CHF患者18例为研究对象,比较CRT/CRTD治疗前后NYHA心功能分级、左室射血分数(LVEF)、左室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)、肺动脉收缩压、左房内径、LVEDD返流面积、右室大小等心功能指标变化,分析患者心功能改变情况及预后状况。结果慢性心力衰竭患者CRT/CRT-D术后心力衰竭症状明显改善,心电图QRS波时限显著缩短,NYHA心功能分级好转(2.5±0.76级vs.3.7±0.65级),LVEDD返流情况减弱,6 min步行距离增加(401.21±152.48 m vs.235.51±108.45 m),肺动脉收缩压、左房内径、LVEDD返流面积较术前指标都明显改善,以上指标术前术后对比,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),提示CHF患者CRT/CRT-D治疗有效。术后随访12个月,植入CRT/CRTD的CHF患者没有出现死亡例数,有效率为100%;在术后,CRT/CRT-D患者出现1例左心室导线脱位和1例膈肌刺激,总并发症发生率为11.11%,而无其他不良反应,出现并发症的患者均接受了CRT治疗,接受CRT-D治疗的患者在随访期间未出现任何并发症。结论采用CRT/CRT-D治疗CHF患者可有效改善CHF患者的心功能,疗效突出,不良反应作用小。     

单中心心脏再同步治疗相关并发症分析

目的回顾性总结单中心心脏再同步治疗（CRT）相关并发症概况为临床对CRT患者的管理提供相关经验。 方法本研究为回顾性研究,纳入2009年6月至2021年6月在新疆医科大学第一附属医院心血管内科植入CRT的心力衰竭（心衰）患者,按照植入装置类型分为心脏再同步治疗除颤器（CRT-D）组和心脏再同步治疗起搏器（CRT-P）组,分析患者术中、术后发生左心室导线植入失败、膈肌刺激、冠状静脉系统损伤等相关并发症的情况及原因。 结果共纳入469例患者,其中男359例（359/469,76.55%）,年龄（62.31±11.69）岁,术前左心室射血分数为34.76%±7.96%,术前QRS时限为（161.82±30.57）ms。左心室导线植入成功率为95.1%（446/499）。术中膈肌刺激2例（0.43%）;急性左心衰竭3例（6.40%）;冠状静脉夹层15例（3.19%）;囊袋血肿4例（0.85%）;导线脱位10例（2.13%）,其中急性脱位2例（20%）、亚急性脱位4例（40%）、迟发性脱位4例（40%）。 结论CRT术中发生相关并发症的风险较高,同时也要警惕和排除发生相关术后并发症的可能。     

植入型心律转复除颤器和心脏再同步治疗植入术后再行心脏移植的原因分析

目的 回顾性分析心脏再同步治疗（CRT）和植入心律转复除颤器（ICD）后再进行心脏移植的病例特点和原因.方法 选择12例植入器械治疗后进行心脏移植的患者,对临床表现、器械治疗后随访、心脏移植的原因进行了回顾性分析.结果 6例患者植入了CRT,6例患者植入ICD,平均年龄22～63（43.67±12.05）岁,植入器械治疗至移植手术的平均时间5～48（26.72±14.02）个月.ICD患者术后进行心脏移植的原因与心律失常发作、ICD频繁放电、ICD电池耗竭、心力衰竭加重有关.CRT患者术后进行心脏移植原因与心力衰竭加重有关.结论 对于需要植入ICD或CRT治疗恶性心律失常的患者,应该严格掌握适应证,植入器械治疗后严密随访观察,根据心力衰竭的发展情况决定心脏移植手术时机.     

新型左心室四极导线在心脏再同步治疗除颤器的应用一例

心脏再同步治疗（CRT）已成为公认的失同步性收缩性心力衰竭的有效治疗措施.然而,部分满足CRT植入适应证的患者却因左心室高起搏阈值或膈神经刺激（PNS）而无法接受再同步治疗.一种新型的左心室4极导线（QuartetTM,美国圣犹达公司）,可提供多个起搏位点以及多种起搏向量选择,不但可以解决左心室阈值高、膈神经刺激问题,并能将左心室起搏位点设于理想的起搏部位.本文将就我国植入的首台左心室4极导线心脏再同步治疗除颤器（CRT-D）进行报道.     

心脏再同步治疗患者心脏静脉血流异常分析

目的研究心脏再同步治疗（CRT）患者心脏静脉系统血流异常情况,以便左心室电极导线植入。方法109例植入CRT患者,男性67例,女性42例,年龄46～84（61．8±14．2）岁,其中扩张性心肌病90例,高血压性心脏病15例,缺m性心肌病4例,心功能Ⅲ-Ⅳ级（NYHA分级）。通过采用后前位、左前斜和右前斜3种不同x线体位,分别经冠状静脉窦逆行灌注显像或经冠状动脉造影延迟顺行心脏静脉显像,观察心脏静脉系统血流异常的情况,总结心脏静脉系统解剖变异特点。结果心脏静脉系统造影显像提示37例（33．9％）植入CRT患者存在不同程度的心脏静脉系统血流异常,其中冠状静脉窦口或窦体异常者15例（13．8％）,心脏静脉分支异常者22例（20．1％）。经心脏静脉系统而完成CRT植入术的成功率为99％,荭心室电极导线脱位发生率为2％,未出现严重并发症病例。结论心脏静脉系统血流异常是心力衰竭患者比较常见的现象,绝大部分左心室电极导线植入均能经心脏静脉系统顺利完成。     

心脏再同步化治疗除颤器在慢性心力衰竭患者中的临床应用

目的总结具有心脏再同步化治疗（CRT）和埋藏式自动复律除颤器（ICD）功能的心脏再同步化治疗除颤器（CRT-D）用于临床治疗慢性心力衰竭（心衰）的初步经验。方法17例药物治疗无效的慢性心衰患者接受了CRT-D治疗,其中6例患者接受了具有心衰预警功能的InSyncSentry。基础病因为扩张性心肌病12例,缺血性心肌病5例;13例患者既往有室性心动过速或心室颤动的发作病史。结果17例患者均成功置入CRT-D,左室导线平均起搏阈值为1．6V,除颤阈值≤20J,无并发症发生。平均随访13个月,5例患者发生室性心动过速诱发的电击除颤。1例置入InSyncSentry的患者由于心功能恶化出现2次心衰报警事件,药物治疗后好转。结论CRT-D置入手术相对安全,不仅能改善患者心功能,而且可预防心脏性猝死的发生。     

心脏再同步治疗慢性心力衰竭的疗效评价及无反应原因分析

目的通过对本院植入的20例三腔起搏器患者进行随访观察,分析心脏再同步治疗（CRT）的临床疗效及对CRT无反应的原因。方法研究接受CRT治疗的20例患者,观察术后的临床有效率和超声心动图有效率,总结此期间的心脏不良事件。结果植入术后临床症状改善12例,临床有效率60％;超声心动图有效者11例（55％）,平均左心室射血分数提高0．10。有3例死亡（15％）;1例左心室电极导线脱位,经复位后起搏良好;1例左心室电极起搏阈值升高,被迫关闭起搏器;临床无反应者4例。缺血性心肌病合并前壁心肌梗死或慢性肾功能不良的患者CRT效果欠佳;宽QRS心力衰竭患者对CRT反应优于窄QRS患者。心房颤动伴缓慢心室率患者CRT同样有效。结论CRT能改善心力衰竭患者的左心室收缩功能和左心室重构,减少二尖瓣反流。对CRT的反应与入选患者的基础心脏病和QRS波的宽度有关。     

50例心脏再同步治疗并发症分析

目的 探讨心脏再同步治疗(CRT)术中、术后并发症死亡病例分析.方法 心力衰竭患者50例,男性32例,女性18例,年龄35～79(62.18±13.16)岁,其中扩张性心肌病35例,高血压性心脏病2例,缺血性心肌病10例,三度房室阻滞3例.心功能Ⅲ级(NYHA分级)37例、Ⅳ级13例.植入心脏再同步治疗系统(CRT,含CRT-D),平均随访(22.1±12.8)个月.结果 50例患者中49例成功植入心脏再同步治疗系统,成功率为98%.植入术中、术后相关并发症包括:冠状静脉窦夹层3例(6%),心脏静脉穿孔1例(2%),右心室穿孔1例(2%),膈肌跳动1例(2%);死亡4例,其中围手术期死亡2例.结论 CRT植入术有一定的风险,主要与左心室电极导线的植入过程有关,但亦可能与右心室电极导线相关.应掌握好适应证并作好充分的准备,规范操作,严密观察;同时规范随访和程控,以减少并发症的发生.     

24例扩张型心肌病应用埋藏式心脏复律除颤器一级预防心脏性猝死的临床应用

目的:随访扩张型心肌病患者埋藏式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)对心脏性猝死(SCD)的一级预防作用。方法:选取2013-12至2014-12浙江大学医学院附属第二医院心内科扩张型心肌病患者36例,其中男性29例(80.6%),女性7例(19.4%),平均年龄(63.0±11.8)岁。36例患者符合一级预防适应症并植入ICD者为ICD组(n=24),由于家庭条件等原因拒绝行ICD治疗的患者为对照组(n=12)。治疗后1、3、6个月随访,以后每6个月随访1次,观察患者的临床症状,随访时通过体外程控仪调出ICD储存的资料进行分析,了解恶性心律失常的发生情况,ICD的工作情况。结果:24例ICD组患者经锁骨下静脉植入的植入CRT-D 10例(42%),植入ICD 14例(58%),无并发症发生。36例患者随访6~18个月,ICD组患者中3例患者发生心室颤动(室颤),均除颤成功,4例患者发生室性心动过速,抗心动过速起搏转复成功,1例患者因心房颤动快速心室率发生误放电,通过药物控制心室率及调整ICD参数,未再发生误放电。ICD组随访时与本组入院时比较,除1例植入CRT-D的患者左心室射血分数(LVEF)下降以外,其余23例患者LVEF均较术前明显增高[(40.59±11.71)% vs (25.12±5.35)%],与对照组随访期间比较LVEF显著增加,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);对照组患者心脏结构及左心室收缩功能均没有明显改善(P0.05),LVEF无改善[(30.47±6.52)% vs (30.73±6.31)%,P0.05]。结论:ICD在扩张型心肌病患者SCD一级预防中疗效明确,可使心脏性猝死的高危患者获益。     

Device Therapies: New Indications and Future Directions

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization (CRT) and combination (CRT-D) therapy have be-come an integral part of the management of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). ICDs treat ventricular arrhythmia and CRTs improve left ventricular systolic function by resynchronizing ventricular contraction. De-vice therapies (ICD, CRT-D), have been shown to reduce all-cause mortality, including sudden cardiac death. Hospitaliza-tions are reduced with CRT and CRT-D therapy. Major device related complications include device infection, inappropriate shocks, lead malfunction and complications related to extraction of devices. Improvements in device design and implantation have included progressive miniaturization and increasing battery life of the device, optimization of response to CRT, and minimizing inappropriate device therapy. Additionally, better definition of the population with the greatest benefit is an area of active research.     

心脏再同步治疗60例并发症分析

目的分析心脏再同步治疗(CRT)术中、术后并发症发生规律及防范对策。方法1999年7月至2006年1月,60例慢性心力衰竭患者[男性39例,女性21例,平均年龄(59.8±9.1)岁]接受CRT或CRT-D植入手术,其中52例双心室起搏。在最短1个月、最长66个月、平均22个月的随访期内追踪患者临床表现、死因以及各种并发症发生情况,同时给予相应的治疗干预。结果随访期内17例死亡(28.3%)的原因分别为心脏性猝死7例(11.7%,含1例手术失败)、心力衰竭恶化8例(13.3%,含1例手术失败)、中风1例(1.7%)、车祸1例(1.7%)。31例次并发症(51.7%)中7例左心室导线植入失败(11.7%)、2例冠状静脉窦夹层或穿孔(3.3%)、4例膈肌刺激(6.7%)、1例心律失常风暴(1.7%)、5例术中急性左心衰竭(8.3%)、4例导线脱位(6.7%)、3例阈值升高(5%)、3例交叉感知(5%)、2例囊袋积血(3.3%)。改行右心室流出道+右心室尖双部位起搏的6例患者,QRS波变窄程度和心力衰竭改善程度均不如双心室起搏显著,且3例死于心力衰竭恶化。5例CRT-D患者无心脏性猝死。结论严格把握适应证、提高左心室导线植入成功率、优化起搏系统的硬件和软件等,可确保患者在获益于CRT治疗的同时最大限度降低并发症风险。     

Implantable device therapy

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for two-thirds of fatal events related to heart disease. Coronary heart disease and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy are the most common causes of SCD. Data from major randomized trials have consistently shown that therapy with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) results in a significant and meaningful effect on survival through a reduction in the risk of SCD in these population. These data have resulted in a marked increase in the application of implantable device therapy in the past 2 decades from secondary prevention with an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) in survivors of a cardiac arrest to primary prevention of SCD in asymptomatic patients with ischemic and non-ischemic left ventricular dysfunction, and prevention of symptomatic heart failure progression and death with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and devices that combine CRT and ICD therapies (CRT-D). However, there are still areas of uncertainty regarding device therapy that include inconsistent benefit in risk-subgroups of patients with low ejection fraction; increased risk of heart failure after life-prolonging ICD therapy, and a considerable rate of device malfunction despite increasing sophistication. In the present review we focus on current data regarding the clinical indications as well as the safety and efficacy of implantable device therapy, including ICD, CRT, and CRT-D.     

Electrical storm of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia after a cardiac-resynchronization-therapy-defibrillator upgrade.

In patients with significant left ventricular dysfunction and congestive heart failure despite optimal medical therapy, implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillation (CRT-D) devices has been shown to improve symptoms and mortality. In this report, we describe a case of a patient with ischaemic cardiomyopathy who developed incessant ventricular tachycardia (VT) after undergoing an upgrade from an implantable cardioverter defibrillator to a CRT-D device. The patient required multiple anti-arrhythmic agents, removal of the coronary sinus lead, and radiofrequency ablation to control VT. Thus, in rare patients, the CRT devices may potentially cause 'proarrhythmia' with serious consequences.     

器械升级时原起搏导线及囊袋的处理

目的观察器械升级时原起搏导线及囊袋处理的方法、可行性和安全性。方法本组共11例患者,根据升级后所应用器械分为心脏再同步治疗（CRT）组及植入型心脏再同步治疗除颤器（CRT—D）组。CRT组5例患者,其中4例升级前为单腔起搏器（VVI）,1例为双腔起搏器（DDD）;CRT—D组6例,升级前分别为1例VVI、2例DDD、2例单腔植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）及1例CRT。起搏器囊袋依患者情况而定,但CRT—D囊袋须往左侧胸部。结果常规起搏器升级为CRT者,除1例原双极心室导线各参数均符合更换时要求外,弃用其他单极心房、心室导线,重新植入新的双极导线。升级为CRT—D者,1例VVI起搏器,弃用原单极心室导线,植入ICD心室导线,同时植入双极心房起搏导线和左心室导线;2例双腔起搏器原心房导线均为单极,予弃用,重新植入双极心房导线,心室新植入ICD导线;2例原ICD导线均能续用;1例CRT升级仪需新债入ICD导线。起搏器衰袋除1例存右侧胸部外,余10例均在左侧胸部。结论器械的升级是安仝、可行的,对原起搏导线需评估后依不同情况分别作出相应的处理。     

Epicardial CRT-P- and S-ICD Implantation in a Young Patient with Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava

Persistent left superior vena cava is known to be a challenging anatomic abnormality for transvenous cardiac device implantation. In the a case of a young man presenting with dilative cardiomyopathy with severely impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and second-degree atrioventricular block (AV block), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation was indicated. A transvenous approach was attempted, but placement of the right ventricular lead was not successful due to anatomic abnormalities. Therefore, epicardial CRT leads were implanted via a left mini-thoracotomy. For primary prevention of sudden death, the patient was also fitted with an additional subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD). Any cross-talk between the devices was ruled out both intraoperatively and by ergometry prior to discharge. The combination of epicardial CRT-P with S?ICD implantation might be a safe and effective alternative in patients with cardiac anatomic abnormalities.     

慢性心力衰竭合并持续性心房颤动患者心脏再同步治疗术后房室结消融及药物控制心室率疗效观察

目的观察慢性心力衰竭合并持续性心房颤动（房颤）患者心脏再同步治疗（CRT）的疗效,比较房室结消融术及药物控制心室率两种方法疗效的差异。方法慢性心力衰竭合并持续性房颤患者,符合CRT植入适应证并接受CRT或心脏再同步治疗除颤器（CRT—D）植入术,术后随机分为两组,房室结消融组以及药物治疗组,术后随访观察患者临床症状及心功能改善等情况,比较两组的疗效。结果共人选了26例患者,其中房室结消融组14例,药物控制组12例。术前两组患者间心功能,左心室舒张末期内径（LVEDD）,左心室射血分数（LVEF）及用药等基本情况差异无统计学意义。CRT术后随访结果,房室结消融组双心室起搏比例100％,药物治疗组双心室起搏比例72．0％±9．7％。与药物治疗组相比,房室结消融组LVEDD略有缩小[（61．0±6．9）mm对（62．0±7．8）mm],但差异无统计学意义（P=0．08）,LVEF改善明显（0．41±0．06对0．35±0．04）,差异有统计学意义（P=0．04）,提示房室结消融组疗效更佳。结论对慢性心力衰竭合并持续性房颤患者,CRT可以改善患者心功能,CRT术后行房室结消融可以提高有效的双心室起搏比例,进一步提高CRT疗效。     

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Asymptomatic or Mildly Symptomatic Heart Failure Patients

Heart failure is a constantly progressing disease involving patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiac disease. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been used successfully in patients with severe heart failure symptoms, poor left ventricular (LV) function, and a prolonged QRS duration. Large trials in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV heart failure have demonstrated that heart failure symptoms can be reduced and exercise capacity improved, overall mortality decreased, and ventricular function increased. How long these beneficial effects of CRT will last in patients with an already advanced stage of heart failure, particularly in NYHA IV, is still unknown. Therefore, it is more reasonable to initiate CRT in appropriate patients who have structural heart disease but have not yet developed severe heart failure symptoms. Slowing heart failure progression seems to be the most important target. Medical treatment alone has not demonstrated that this can be achieved in patients with poor ventricular function and prolonged QRS (>120 ms). The recently published results of MADIT-CRT, as well as the extended follow-up of the REVERSE substudy of the European patient cohort, have shown that prevention of heart failure progression can be well accomplished with CRT and implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) backup (CRT-D). Heart failure events and death occurred significantly less often in patients with CRT-D than in those with an ICD only. A clinically important reversal of ventricular remodeling with reduced ventricular volumes and increased LV ejection fraction was found in the CRT-D–treated patients. The benefit was seen in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy and in those with NYHA class I or II heart failure; the most benefit was demonstrated in patients showing a “classic” left bundle branch block electrocardiogram pattern (about 70% of the enrolled patients) and in female patients. Results from both trials support the view that future efforts regarding heart failure treatment should concentrate more on prevention of heart failure progression in mildly symptomatic or even asymptomatic candidates for CRT-D. It is time to change the guidelines for heart failure treatment.     

Biventricular pacing and defibrillator use in chronic heart failure

Since the 1970s when the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) was developed, multiple clinical trials have documented survival benefits in certain high-risk subsets of heart failure patients. Over the past decade, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) emerged as an important therapy in carefully selected patients with ongoing symptoms despite optimized pharmacological therapy. ICDs should be considered first-line therapy for survivors of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmic events. Subsets of patients with both ischemic and nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy appear to have a survival benefit from primary ICD therapy. CRT has resulted in substantial symptomatic improvement and survival benefits in a subgroup of chronic heart failure patients. CRT should be considered in heart failure patients undergoing ICD implantation who have evidence of ventricular dyssynchrony.