右室双部位起搏的急性血流动力学研究

目的 :比较右室双部位 (RV Bi)起搏与右室心尖部 (RVA)、右室流出道 (RVOT)起搏对急性血流动力学的影响。方法 :对 15例患者 (其中病态窦房结综合征 8例 ;三度房室传导阻滞 7例 )。分别行RVA、RVOT、RV Bi起搏 (VVI ,6 0～ 90次 /min) ,测定心排血量 (CO)和心排血指数 (CI)、平均肺动脉压 (mPAP)和肺毛细血管嵌顿压 (PCWP) ,QRS宽度 (QRSd)和电轴 (QRSa)。结果 :RV Bi起搏较RVOT、RVA起搏CO、CI明显增加 ,均P<0 .0 1;PCWP显著降低 ,为P <0 .0 5～ 0 .0 1;3个不同部位起搏mPAP无明显变化 ;RV Bi起搏较RVOT起搏的QRS波时限平均缩短 17ms,较RVA平均缩短了 35ms ,均P <0 .0 1。结论 :RV Bi起搏的急性血流动力学效果明显优于RVOT ,RVA等单部位起搏。     

右室流出道间隔部起搏的临床应用进展

随着对生理性起搏认识的深入,研究发现右室心尖部(RVA)起搏改变了正常的心室激动顺序,是血流动力表现最差的起搏部位,而右室流出道(RVOT)间隔部起搏可以实现接近生理状态的心室激动顺序和双心室同步,改善血流动力学。开展RVOT间隔部起搏是今后生理性起搏发展趋势。     

右室流出道间隔部应用螺旋电极固定起搏对心功能的影响分析

目的比较右室流出道(RVOT)间隔部起搏和右室心尖部起搏(RVA)对心功能的影响,评估螺旋电极进行右室流出道间隔部起搏技术的可行性与安全性。方法选择有永久起搏器植入适应证的患者21例,分为右室流出道间隔部起搏组(试验组),右心室心尖部起搏组(对照组),以超声心动图(UCG)和心电图评价两组术前、术后血流动力学和QRS波宽度差异。结果术后平均随访6个月,结果显示RVOT起搏血流动力学优于RVA起搏(P<0.05),RVOT起搏QRS波宽度较RVA组缩短,有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论利用螺旋电极进行右室流出道间隔部起搏基本可行且较为安全,右室流出道间隔部起搏的血流动力学参数优于右室心尖部。     

心脏选择性部位起搏的电和机械同步性研究的初步报告

目的观察心脏不同部位起搏时的电及机械同步性和血流动力学变化。方法14例患者分别于右室心尖（RVA）、希氏束部位（His）、右室高位流出道间隔部（RVOT）起搏,记录心输出量和心脏指数;比较不同部位起搏和自身心律时12导联体表心电图的QRS波宽度和方向,以评价电同步性;用全数字化超声诊断系统的向量速度显像评价机械同步性。结果心输出量和心脏指数在RVA起搏时较差,但差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。各部位起搏时QRS波的宽度：His为（124±5．3）ms,RVOT（144±7．1）ms,RVA（156±8．6）ms,均较自身心律（92±4．5）ms时宽（P〈0．01）;而His及RVOT均较RVA起搏时的QRS波时限窄,其差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。向量速度显像检查提示,RVOT起搏相对于RVA起搏有更好的机械同步性。结论RVOT可能较传统的RVA部位起搏好,同时手术操作容易。     

右室双部位起搏与双室同步起搏的急性血液动力学对比研究

比较右室双部位 (RV Bi)起搏和双室 (BiV)同步起搏对血液动力学的影响 ,并与右室心尖部 (RVA)、右室流出道 (RVOT)、左室基底部 (LVB)起搏相比较 ,明确双部位起搏是否优于单部位起搏。 15例患者中病窦综合征 8例、Ⅲ度房室阻滞 7例。分别行RVA、RVOT、LVB、RV Bi、BiV起搏 (VVI,6 0～ 90次 /分 ) ,测定心输出量 (CO)和心脏指数(CI)、肺毛细血管嵌顿压 (PCWP)和QRS波时限 (QRSd)。结果 :①与RVA起搏相比 ,RVOT、LVB、RV Bi、BiV起搏CI分别增加了 7.5 %、11.3%、15 .5 %和 17.2 % ,PCWP分别降低了 14.9%、10 .3%、2 1.7%和 2 0 .0 % (P均 <0 .0 1)。②RV Bi、BiV起搏较RVOT、LVB起搏的CO、CI增高而PCWP降低 (P均 <0 .0 5 )。③RV Bi与BiV起搏、RVOT与LVB起搏之间CO、CI和PCWP无显著差异。④RVOT、RV Bi、BiV起搏的QRSd(分别为 12 8± 11,111± 16 ,10 3± 13ms)较RVA起搏 (146± 18ms)时显著缩短 (P≤ 0 .0 0 1) ,而LVB起搏 (142± 15ms)与RVOT、RVA起搏时无显著差异。结论 :RV Bi起搏和BiV同步起搏的急性血液动力学效果无明显差异 ,但双部位起搏的效果明显优于单部位起搏 ;双部位起搏的QRSd也比单部位起搏明显缩短     

不同起搏部位对心脏病患者近期血流动力学及心脏结构的影响

心室电激动顺序和心室收缩同步性均是影响心功能的重要因素,在起搏方式一定时,起搏部位通过对心室激动顺序的不同对心功能有不同的影响。本文通过对右室心尖部（RVA）起搏和右室流出道（RVOT）起搏患者的血流动力学及心脏结构改变的比较,以探讨其对患者近期血流动力学和心脏结构的影响。     

右室流出道间隔部和心尖部起搏对心功能和重构的影响

目的比较右室流出道(RVOT)和右室心尖部(RVA)起搏对心脏做功和重构的影响。方法 83例缓慢心律失常的患者,其中男40例,女43例,随机分为RVOT间隔部起搏组(RVOT组,n=42)和RVA部起搏组(RVA组,n=41),观察两组QRS波时限、新出现心房颤动(简称房颤)的情况、心腔内径及左室射血分数(LVEF)的变化。结果随访11.47±1.67个月,两组术后QRS波时限均较术前明显延长(P<0.01),RVA组明显长于RVOT组(P<0.01);两组的左房内径和左室收缩末径均未见明显变化,RVA组1年后左室舒张末径较术前显著增加(53.53±5.72 mm vs 50.03±6.20 mm,P<0.05),两组1年后LVEF均较术前显著降低(RVOT、RVA比较分别为0.57±0.10 vs 0.62±0.11,0.53±0.08 vs 0.63±0.10,P均<0.01);两组新出现房颤例数亦未见差异。结论 RVOT起搏对心室重构的影响要好于RVA起搏。     

右室不同部位起搏对患者心功能及心理状态的影响

目的 通过对患者安装起搏器的不同部位的调查,分析右室流出道(RVOT)间隔部起搏及右室心尖部(RVA)起搏对患者心功能及心理状态的影响。方法 选取2014年3月至2016年3月我院接受心脏起搏器治疗的189例患者,随机分为两组：RVOT间隔部起搏组(简称RVOT组)93例和RVA起搏组(简称RVA组)96例,分别于术前、术后1周采集两组患者心电图QRS波群时限、QT间期,于术前、术后1年行心脏超声检查,采集左室舒张末内径(LVEDD)、左室射血分数(LVEF)、左房内径(LAD)参数。分别于术前、术后1周、术后3个月及术后1年对两组患者使用汉密尔顿焦虑评分量表(HARS)和汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HDRS)用于患者的心理评估。结果 RVA组及RVOT组术后QRS波群时限、QT间期较术前均延长(P<0.05),且RVA组QRS波群时限、QT间期较RVOT组延长显著(P<0.01)；RVA组术前LVEDD、LVEF、LAD与术后1年相比有显著差异(P<0.05)；RVOT组术前LVEDD、LVEF、LAD与术后1年相比无显著统计学差异(P>0.05),RVA组术前及术后1周HARS及HDRS差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),术后3个月及1年有显著差异(P<0.05),RVOT组术前及术后1周、术后3个月、术后1年均无统计学差异。结论 RVOT组较RVA组对患者心功能及心理状态影响更小,为临床更适宜选择的起搏器植入部位。     

右心室流出道间隔部起搏对左心室功能的影响

目的比较右心室流出道间隔部(RVOT)起搏与右心室心尖部(RVA)起搏的血流动力学差异;评估RVOT起搏技术的可行性与安全性。方法选择有永久起搏器置入适应证的患者75例。根据术者建议和患者意愿分为RVOT组(40例)和RVA组(35例)。所有房室传导阻滞及病窦综合征合并一度房室传导阻滞患者采用双腔起搏双腔感知触发抑制型起搏模式,心房颤动伴长间歇患者采用抑制型心室按需起搏模式。比较2组的血流动力学差异。结果 RVOT组的QRS波宽度较RVA组缩窄(23.2±28.7)ms,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。与RVA组比较,RVOT组LVEF、左心室短轴缩短率明显升高,左心室舒张末容积明显下降(P<0.05,P<0.01)。与术前比较,RVA组LVEF、左心室短轴缩短率明显下降,左心室舒张末容积明显升高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论利用螺旋电极进行RVOT起搏可行且较为安全。RVOT起搏的血流动力学参数优于RVA。     

右心室流出道与右心室心尖部起搏对心室收缩同步性和心功能的影响

目的研究右心室流出道(right ventricular outflow tract,RVOT)间隔部和右心室心尖部(right ventricularapex,RVA)起搏对心脏收缩同步性、收缩功能的影响,探讨RVOT间隔部起搏的意义。方法 50例病态窦房结综合征患者分为RVOT组(n=25)和RVA组(n=25),起搏器置入1个月后通过调整房室间期使心室节律全部为起搏节律或房室结自身下传节律,观察起搏参数,并行超声心动图检查。结果RVOT组与RVA组电极导线植入时间、X线曝光时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。全部患者未出现植入并发症。两组随访1个月时起搏参数比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。RVOT组和RVA组起搏后的QRS波时限较前明显增宽,差异有统计学意义[RVOT组:(135±8)ms vs.(88±8)ms,P<0.001;RVA组:(154±8)ms vs.(90±6)ms,P<0.001]。RVA组起搏后QRS波时限较RVOT组增宽更为明显,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。两组起搏后室间机械延迟(interventricularmechanical delay,IVMD)和室间隔-左心室后壁收缩运动延迟时间(septal-to-posteriowall motion delay,SPWMD)较起搏前均显著增加,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。RVA组起搏后IVMD和SPWMD绝对值较RVOT组显著延长,差异有统计学意义[IVMD:(38±7)ms vs.(24±5)ms,P<0.001;SPWMD:(118±21)ms vs.(60±11)ms,P<0.001]。两组左心室舒张末内径及左心室射血分数比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论右心室起搏会造成心室收缩不同步,RVOT起搏对心室收缩不同步的影响较RVA起搏小,提示RVOT起搏是较为生理的起搏位点。     

右心室不同部位起搏对心脏收缩同步性及心功能的影响

目的比较右心室流出道（right ventricular outflow tract,RVOT）起搏与右心窀心尖部（riht ventficular apex,RVA）起搏对心脏收缩同步性指标及收缩功能的影响。方法2004年1月至2005年1月在我院植入VVL／VVIR,DDD／DDDR起搏器的患者,随机接受RVA起搏和RVOT起搏。植入前检查12导联体表心电罔及超声心动图,记录QRS时限、左心室舒张末内径（LVEDD）、左心房内径（LAD）、左心事射血分数（LVEF）。植入后记录心室起搏状态下的QRS时限。随访时间为2年,随访内容包括LVEDD、LAD、LVEF,同时应用脉冲组织多普勒技术测定心室问激动延迟（IVMD）以及左心室内收缩同步性指标（Ts-SD）。结果共随访30例患者,其中RVA起搏17例,RVOT起搏13例,两组患者间年龄、性别及心血管疾病等基本情况筹异无统计学意义。植入前两组患者问QRS时限、LVEDD、LAD及LVEF差异无统计学意义,植入后RVOT起搏状态下QRS时限较RVA起搏明显缩短[（140．15±11．36）ms对（160．76±23．68）ms,P=0．033],植入后两组间IVMD[（25．7±9．1）mS对（36．7±10．0）ms,P=0．076]比较差异无统计学意义,两组问Ts—SD（13．34ms对42．96ms,P=0．001）比较差异有统计学意义;植入后随访两年,两组患者间LAD差异无统计学意义[（43±6）ms对（42±9）ms,P=0．759],同RVA组相比,RVOT组LVEDD缩小[（5．10±0．76）mm对（5．28±0．40）mm,P=0．048],LVEF明显增加（0．56±0．04对0．52±0．02,P=0．001）。结论同右心窄流出道起搏相比,右心室心尖部起搏对患者心功能呈负性影响,且加重左心室内不同步收缩。     

Right ventricular outflow versus apical pacing in pacemaker patients with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies suggest that right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing has deleterious effects. Whether the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) is a more optimal site for permanent pacing in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) has not been established. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a randomized, cross-over trial to determine whether quality of life (QOL) is better after 3 months of RVOT than RVA pacing in 103 pacemaker recipients with CHF, left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction < or = 40%), and chronic atrial fibrillation (AF). An additional aim was to compare dual-site (RVOT + RVA, 31-ms delay) with single-site RVA and RVOT pacing. QRS duration was shorter during RVOT (167 +/- 45 ms) and dual-site (149 +/- 19 ms) than RVA pacing (180 +/- 58 ms, P < 0.0001). At 6 months, the RVOT group had higher (P = 0.01) role-emotional QOL subscale scores than the RVA group. At 9 months, there were no significant differences in QOL scores between RVOT and RVA groups. Comparing RVOT to RVA pacing within the same patient, mental health subscale scores were better (P = 0.03) during RVOT pacing. After 9 months of follow-up, LVEF was higher (P = 0.04) in those assigned to RVA rather than RVOT pacing between months 6 and 9. After 3 months of dual-site RV pacing, physical functioning was worse (P = 0.04) than during RVA pacing, mental health was worse (P = 0.02) than during RVOT pacing, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was slightly better (P = 0.03) than during RVOT pacing. There were no other significant differences between RVA, RVOT and dual-site RV pacing in QOL scores, NYHA class, distance walked in 6 minutes, LV ejection fraction, or mitral regurgitation. CONCLUSION: In patients with CHF, LV dysfunction, and chronic AF, RVOT and dual-site RV pacing shorten QRS duration but after 3 months do not consistently improve QOL or other clinical outcomes compared with RVA pacing.     

左束支起搏心电图的特点观察

目的通过比较自身心律、左束支起搏、右室心尖部或右室流出道起搏时心电图的形态和QRS波群时限等,找寻左束支起搏心电图的特征表现。方法选取拟行左束支起搏42例患者,记录标准12导联体表心电图,通过测量,分别比较自身心律、左束支起搏及右室心尖部/右室流出道起搏时QRS波群时限、电轴、形态及ST段的差异。结果自身心律与左束支起搏相比,QRS波群时限无统计学差异(P=0. 49),但与右室心尖部/右室流出道起搏相比,具有显著差异(P <0. 000)。左束支起搏组,V1导联呈特征性"M"或"r SR"的比例为76. 19%;a VR导联亦可呈特征性"M"或"r SR"表现,比例为78. 57%。对于自身心律为右束支阻滞者,左束支区域起搏仅V1导联呈"M"或"r SR",a VR导联呈QS型,而无特征性"M"或"r SR"表现。与经典的右束支阻滞心电图比较:左束支起搏ST段和T波改变无规律性。结论左束支起搏心电图QRS波群时限和电轴与自身心律相比无显著差别,V1及a VR导联均可见特征性"M"或"r SR"表现,右束支阻滞患者仅V1导联呈特征性表现,但依靠心电图的特征性"M"或"r SR"改变判断起搏位点有局限性。     

Effects of lidocaine and procainamide on normal and abnormal intraventricular electrograms during sinus rhythm

The effect of lidocaine (n = 6) and procainamide (n = 12) on electrogram characteristics from electrically normal right ventricular and electrically abnormal left ventricular endocardial sites was determined in 18 patients with prior myocardial infarction. Bipolar electrograms were recorded during sinus rhythm with No. 6F catheters positioned at a left ventricular abnormal site (electrograms fulfilling two of the following criteria: amplitude less than 3 mV, duration greater than 70 msec, or an amplitude to duration ratio less than .046) and normal sites at the right ventricular apex (RVA) and right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT). All electrograms were recorded from the same location before and after intravenous lidocaine or procainamide administered to obtain mean serum concentrations of 4.2 +/- 0.6 and 9.42 +/- 2 micrograms/ml respectively. Lidocaine and procainamide had no significant effect on sinus cycle length or electrogram amplitude. After lidocaine, no significant change in QRS width (112 +/- 23 vs 114 +/- 24 msec), left ventricular electrogram duration (76 +/- 21 vs 78 +/- 15 msec), or right ventricular electrogram duration (RVA 33 +/- 9 vs 33 +/- 10 msec, RVOT 31 +/- 9 vs 33 +/- 11 msec) was noted during sinus rhythm. At a paced cycle length of 600 msec, there was also no change in the paced QRS duration (197 vs 198 msec), the RVA electrogram duration (30 vs 32 msec), the RVOT electrogram duration (49 vs 52 msec), or the left ventricular electrogram duration (102 vs 108 msec).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Functional abnormalities in patients with permanent right ventricular pacing: the effect of sites of electrical stimulation

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the long-term effects of alternative right ventricular pacing sites on myocardial function and perfusion. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that asynchronous ventricular activation due to right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing alters regional myocardial perfusion and functions. METHODS: We randomized 24 patients with complete atrioventricular block to undergo permanent ventricular stimulation either at the RVA (n = 12) or right ventricular outflow (RVOT) (n = 12). All patients underwent dipyridamole thallium myocardial scintigraphy and radionuclide ventriculography at 6 and 18 months after pacemaker implantation. RESULTS: After pacing, the mean QRS duration was significantly longer during RVA pacing than during RVOT pacing (151 +/- 6 vs. 134 +/- 4 ms, p = 0.03). At six months, the incidence of myocardial perfusion defects (50% vs. 25%) and regional wall motion abnormalities (42% vs. 25%) and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (55 +/- 3% vs. 55 +/- 1%) were similar during RVA pacing and RVOT pacing (p > 0.05). However, at 18 months, the incidence of myocardial perfusion defects (83% vs. 33%) and regional wall motion abnormalities (75% vs. 33%) were higher and LVEF (47 +/- 3 vs. 56 +/- 1%) was lower during RVA pacing than during RVOT pacing (all p < 0.05). Patients with RVA pacing had a significant increase in the incidence of myocardial perfusion defects (p < 0.05) and a decrease in LVEF (p < 0.01) between 6 and 18 months, but patients with RVOT pacing did not (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that preserved synchronous ventricular activation with RVOT pacing prevents the long-term deleterious effects of RVA pacing on myocardial perfusion and function in patients implanted with a permanent pacemaker.