植入型心律转复除颤器在心脏性猝死一级和二级预防中的应用

目的比较植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）在心脏性猝死一级及二级预防中的治疗作用。方法对2005年1月至2009年6月符合ICD一级预防及二级预防标准并在我院植入ICD的患者进行随访。ICD的诊断设置室性心动过速（VT）、快速室性心动过速（FVT）及心室颤动（VF）3个工作区,治疗设置抗心动过速起搏（ATP）、低能量同步转复（CV）和高能量除颤（DF）。术后每3—6个月随访1次,利用程控仪获取ICD储存资料,了解患者心律失常发作情况以及ICD的诊断和治疗情况。结果共随访了40例患者,一级预防及二级预防各20例,平均随访时间一级预防组（12．2±7．6）个月,二级预防组（14．6±9．6）个月。随访过程中共13例患者发生了VF事件,其中一级预防组4例,二级预防组9例,21例患者发生了VT事件,其中一级预防组9例,二级预防组12例,统计学分析显示两组患者间VF及VT事件发生率差异无统计学意义。VT发生频率（VTfrenquency）在一级预防组为4．465次／月,二级预防组为26．16次／月（P〈0．001）。VT发作时间（VTduration）在一级预防组为（25．6±15．6）s,二级预防组为（78．1±58．7）s（P〈0．001）。一级预防组中9例患者ICD记录有持久性VT事件,其中由ATP终止6例,CV终止3例。4例患者有VF事件,均DF成功,二级预防组中12例患者ICD记录有持久性VT事件,其中由ATP终止7例,CV终止5例。9例患者有VF事件,均DF成功。结论二级预防的患者室性心律失常发作频率及发作时间均明显高于一级预防的患者,但因样本量较小,两组患者间因VT或VF接受ICD治疗的比例差异无统计学意义。     

植入型心律转复除颤器治疗34例随访

目的:对我院37例安装植入型心律转复除颤器患者中34例长期随访(3例失访)。方法:将随访结果进行回顾性总结分析。结果:随访时间4～69个月,平均(24.7±18)个月。29例成功接受植入型心脏复律除颤器(ICD)治疗,占全部患者的85.3%。共发作恶性室性心律失常事件587次,其中313次为非持续性,均自行终止。接受ICD治疗的274次中室性心动过速(VT)238次,占86.9%。心室颤动(VF)36次,占13.1%。VT由抗心动过速起搏(ATP)终止212次,由低能量(2～15J)转复终止23次。有3次VT在ATP治疗时转为VF,由高能量除颤(DF)终止。VF经高能量除颤36次,全部一次成功。5例患者因房性心动过速(房速)或心房颤动(房颤)被误识别为VT而发放电击。34例中有3例死亡,1例死于急性心肌梗死,1例死于心力衰竭,1例死因不明。结论:ICD可以有效的终止VT、VF,是防治心源性猝死的有效治疗手段。     

植入型心律转复除颤器治疗室性快速心律失常的临床应用

目的探讨植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）对室性快速心律失常的治疗效果以及随访过程中所遇到的问题。方法48例植入ICD患者（其中8例为双腔ICD）,根据患者室性心动过速（VT）/心室颤动（VF）发作时的频率及对血流动力学的影响确定方法和参数,并对植入ICD患者定期随访。结果48例患者顺利植入ICD,无并发症,在随访1～38个月中,患者共发作VT/VF 1 025次（VT764次,占74.5%;VF 261次,占25.5%）,其中1 009次（98.4%）治疗成功,16次在ICD充电结束前自行终止。764次VT中,658次（86.1%）经抗心动过速起搏（ATP）终止,106次（13.9%）经低能量复律（CV）终止。261次VF中,经高能量除颤（DF）均终止。6例患者发生误放电19次,8例双腔ICD患者无误放电。结论ICD的疗效是确定的。但单腔ICD常会发生误识别、误放电,随访和及时调整参数可避免或减少此类情况发生。双腔ICD提高了对室上性心律失常的识别能力,从而减少误发电。同时应合理应用抗心律失常药物,高度重视ICD患者的心理治疗。     

植入型心律转复除颤器临床应用

目的　观察 5例恶性室性心律失常患者植入型心律转复除颤器 (ICD)植入术及临床随访情况。方法　 5例因反复发作有血流动力学障碍的室性心动过速 /心室颤动 (VT/ VF)均顺利植入 ICD(其中双腔 ICD2例 ) ,随访 6～ 2 4个月 ,观察患者临床疗效及 ICD工作情况。结果　 5例患者无 1例死亡。随访期间共出现 VT/ VF事件 30 4次 ,ICD识别并治疗的 VT/ VF事件 71次 ,VT 6 5次 ,占 91.5 % ,VF 6次 ,占 8.5 % ,抗心动过速起搏 (ATP)终止 5 5次 ,占77.5 % ,心律转复 (CV)终止 16次 ,占 2 2 .5 % ,VF经除颤 (DF)全部一次成功。结论　 ICD的治疗效果肯定 ,需加强随访 ,及时修改参数 ,同时应加强药物的辅助治疗 ,如 β-受体阻断剂 ,胺碘酮等 ,积极改善心功能。     

埋藏式心脏转复除颤器患者的随访

目的报道7例埋藏式心脏转复除颤器(ICD)治疗恶性室性心律失常的情况。方法对6例单腔ICD及1例双腔ICD植入者进行随访,通过ICD程控仪调出储存的资料,了解ICD对恶性心律失常的治疗情况,并对其工作情况进行分析。结果随访5～44个月,平均23.7个月,ICD共检测到持续性室性心动过速(VT)2 129次,心室颤动(VF)6次。采用抗心动过速起搏(ATP)治疗VT的成功率为91.9%,ATP未能终止的VT经低能量转复(CV)治疗95.3%转为窦性心律,少数VT经治疗后加速为VF。高能量除颤(DF)终止VF的成功率为100%。4例12次误将室上性心动过速误判断为室性事件而启动治疗,其中2次心房颤动,10次窦性心动过速,经调整VT的识别参数及联合使用抗心律失常药物后未再发生类似情况。2例随访期间出现晕厥,ICD存储的信息显示发生了VF并复律成功。2例出现焦虑症,经心理治疗改善。结论术后严密随访,及时调整工作参数,同时关注患者的心理健康并给予针对性的心理支持和治疗,对提高ICD的治疗效果至关重要。     

心脏性猝死一级预防患者埋藏式心脏转复除颤器植入后的随访研究

目的分析心脏性猝死(sudden cardiac death,SCD)一级预防患者植入埋藏式心脏转复除颤器(implantablecardioverter defibrillator,ICD)的治疗效果及相关因素。方法选取江门市中心医院2007年5月至2016年4月SCD一级预防植入ICD患者100例进行程控随访,结合患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果 100例患者随访(37.3±20.1)个月,有25例(25.0%)自发的室性心动过速(ventricular tachycardia,VT)/心室颤动(ventricular fibrillation,VF)事件,得到起搏器的正确诊断并进行适当ICD治疗[放电或抗心动过速起搏(anti-tachycardia pacing,ATP)],19例(19.0%)因起搏器错误诊断并进行了不适当ICD治疗(放电或ATP)。44例共诊断VF 271阵次(其中正确204阵次,占75.3%),VT 433阵次(其中正确217阵次,占50.1%),共放电治疗492次(其中正确270次,占54.9%),ATP治疗765次(其中正确342次,占44.7%,有效终止室心律失常158次,占46.2%)。动态心电图记录非持续性VT,ICD治疗组与非治疗组间非持续性VT≥5次/24 h比较,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 SCD一级预防植入ICD患者得到获益;非持续性VT≥5次/24 h对SCD一级预防患者植入ICD有预测价值。     

植入型心律转复除颤器在心力衰竭心脏性猝死一级预防中的作用初步观察

目的总结我院应用植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）进行心力衰竭心脏性猝死（SCD）一级预防的初步经验。方法入选我院近3年因严重心力衰竭植入ICD进行SCD一级预防的患者,术后3个月进行ICD常规随访,以后每6个月随访1次。结果入选患者22例,其中单腔ICD15台,双腔ICD7台。22例患者随访时间3～28个月。记录ICD治疗事件21次,包括12次抗心动过速起搏（ATP）治疗和9次放电,只有1次ATP治疗患者具自觉症状。其中正确治疗（appropriate therapy）11次（52％）包括8次ATP治疗和3次放电,误治疗（inappropriate therapy）10次（48％）。发生误治疗患者均为植入单腔ICD。结论ICD可以安全有效地应用于心力衰竭SCD的一级预防,ICD误治疗事件是值得重视的临床问题,合理的ATP治疗可以提高患者的生活质量。     

植入埋藏式心脏转复除颤器的临床应用与随访

目的报道13例埋藏式心脏转复除颤器(implantable cardioverter defibrillator,ICD)的临床应用与随访结果。方法对置入10例单腔ICD及3例双腔ICD患者进行电话询问和门诊随访,通过心电图、动态心电图及ICD存储的资料,对患者病情和ICD工作情况进行分析。结果 13例患者共发作持续性室性心动过速/心室颤动(ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation,VT/VF)38次(持续性VT 36次,VF 2次),其中37次治疗成功,1次失败。非持续性VT 121次,发作均自行停止。36次持续性VT中33次经抗心动过速起搏(antitachycardia pacing,ATP)终止,2次经低能量复律(CV)终止,1次VT治疗过程中加速为VF,由高能量除颤(DF)终止。1例共2次阵发性心房颤动心室率超过设置的VT频率,ICD发生误识别,给予ATP治疗。1例术后3个月出现心律失常"电风暴"。共有3例术后因VT发作频繁而服用胺碘酮和(或)美托洛尔,并根据心律失常发作情况调整用药剂量。结论 ICD植入后应加强随访,及时调整工作参数,同时给予患者心理治疗、对提高ICD的治疗效果非常重要。     

置入埋藏式心律转复除颤器的长期随访

目的报道8例埋藏式心脏转复除颤器（1CO）治疗恶性室性心律失常的疗效及随访结果。方法对置入ICD的8例患者进行电话询问和门诊随访,通过常规心电图、动态心电图及ICD存储的资料,对患者病情和ICDT作情况进行分析。结果8台ICD共检出心律失常事件263次,其中202次为短阵非持续性室性心动过速（VT）,自行终止,61次为持续性VT／（室颤）VF,32次为抗心动过速（ATP）终止,21次为低能量电击终止,8次为高能量电击终止,再发恶性室性心律失常全部经ICD成功转复为窦性心率,有效率100％。误放电治疗8次。误放电原因：阵发性心房颤动心室率超过设置的VT频率,ICD发生误识别。结论ICD治疗恶性室性心律失常效果肯定,但应加强随访,警惕误放电。     

植入型心律转复除颤器在致心律失常性右心室心肌病患者中的应用

目的 总结阜外心血管病医院应用植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)治疗致心律失常性右心室心肌病(ARVC)的经验.方法 入选我院2004年3月至2012年3月确诊并植入ICD的ARVC患者,收集临床资料,进行常规电话及门诊随诊.结果 共18例患者[男12例,女6例,平均年龄(46.4±13.8)岁]入选,平均随访(46.6±30.5)个月,有6例患者出现了111次室性心动过速(VT)/心室颤动(VF)事件,其中仅1次VF事件,其余均为VT事件,其中3例患者术后共出现了7次电风暴.ICD治疗组中的C反应蛋白(CRP)明显高于ICD未治疗组.111次VT/VF事件中,12次经电除颤终止心动过速,其余均通过抗心动过速起搏(ATP)终止了心动过速.结论 ARVC患者ICD植入后的VT/VF事件以VT为主,多数可经ATP终止;出现电风暴的ARVC患者易反复发作恶性心律失常;CRP可能对ICD治疗具有预测价值.     

无痛治疗在植入型心律转复除颤器患者心脏性猝死一级和二级预防中的应用

目的 随访植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)患者,了解抗心动过速起搏(antitachycardia pacing,ATP)作为室性心动过速(VT)无痛治疗手段在心脏性猝死一级和二级预防中的应用.方法 对2005年1月至2009年6月符合ICD一级和二级预防标准并在我院植入ICD的患者进行随访.将ICD的诊断程序设置为VT...     

室性心律失常的治疗进展

Ventricular arrhythmias(VA)include premature ventricular contractions(PVC),ventricular tachycardia(VT),ventricular flutter or defibrillation(VFL/VF).Although commonly related to structural heart disease,a significant percentage of VA are idiopathic(occurring in patients with otherwise normal hearts).Classic antiarrhythmic drugs(AADs)for VA have limited effectiveness,and pose the risk of life-threatening VT/VF.Very few AADs have been successful in the last few decades,due to safety concerns or limited benefits in comparison to existing therapy.Amiodarone has emerged as the leading antiarrhythmic therapy for termination and prevention of VA in different clinical settings because of its proven efficacy and safety.For VT/VF,implantable cardioverter defibrillator(ICD)appear to be the unique,yet unsatisfactory,solution.Indications for ICD have evolved considerably from initial implantation exclusively in patients who had survived one or more cardiac arrests and failed pharmacological therapy.Multipie clinical trials have established that ICD use results in improved survival compared with antiarrhythmic agents for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death(SCD).Large prospective,randomized,multicenter studies have also demonstrated that ICD therapy is effective for primary prevention of sudden death and improves total survival in selected patient populations who have not previously had a cardiac arrest or sustained VT.Catheter ablation is now an important option to control recurrent VT.The field has evolved rapidly and is a work in progress.Ablation is often a sole therapy of VT in patients without structural heart disease and is commonly combined with an ICD and/or antiarrhythmic therapy for scar-related VT associated with structural heart disense.     

Long-term incidence of malignant ventricular arrhythmia and shock therapy in patients with primary defibrillator implantation does not differ from event rates in patients treated for survived cardiac arrest

INTRODUCTION: Recent trials have demonstrated benefit of prophylactic defibrillator (ICD) implantation compared to conventional treatment in high-risk patients. However, many patients have rare or no sustained arrhythmias following implantation. Our study addresses the question, whether patients with prophylactic defibrillator implantation have a lower risk for life-threatening ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) compared to sudden cardiac death (SCD) survivors. METHODS AND RESULTS: Over 7 years we enrolled 245 patients. Occurrence of spontaneous sustained VT/VF resulting in adequate ICD treatment was the endpoint. Incidence, type, and treatment of sustained arrhythmia in 43 previously asymptomatic ICD recipients (group B) were compared to data of 202 survivors of imminent SCD (group A). All patients had severely impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (<45%). Group B patients had long runs (>6 cycles, <30 s) of VT during Holter monitoring and inducible sustained arrhythmia. Incidence of rapid VT and VF (cycle length <240 ms/heart rate >250 bpm) after 4 years (35% in both groups, P = ns) and adequate defibrillator therapies (57% vs 55%, P = ns) were similar in both groups after univariate and multivariate analysis. Cumulative mortality tended to be lower in group B compared to group A, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: During long-term follow-up, incidence of sustained rapid ventricular arrhythmia in prophylactically treated patients is as high as that of SCD survivors. Benefit from defibrillator implantation for primary prevention (group B) appears to be comparable to that for survived cardiac arrest (group A).     

Survival after cardiac arrest or sustained ventricular tachycardia in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) after resuscitated ventricular fibrillation or syncopal sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT/VF) when treated with low dose amiodarone or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). BACKGROUND: Prospective data on clinical outcome in patients with HCM who survive a cardiac arrest are limited, but studies conducted before the widespread use of amiodarone and/or ICD therapy suggest that over a third die within seven years from sudden cardiac death or progressive heart failure. METHODS: Sixteen HCM patients with a history of VT/VF (nine male, age at VT/VF 19 +/- 8 years [range 10 to 36]) were studied. Syncopal sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation occurred during or immediately after exertion in eight patients and was the initial presentation in eight. One patient had disabling neurologic deficit after VT/VF. Before VT/VF, two patients had angina, four had syncope and six had a family history of premature sudden cardiac death. After VT/VF all patients were in New York Heart Association class I or II, three had nonsustained VT during ambulatory electrocardiography and 11 had an abnormal exercise blood pressure response. After VT/VF eight patients were treated with low dose amiodarone and six received an ICD. Prophylactic therapy was declined by two patients. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 6.1 +/- 4.0 years (range 0.5 to 14.5). Cumulative survival (death or ICD discharge) for the entire cohort was 59% at five years (95% confidence interval: 33% to 84%). Thirteen (81%) patients were alive at last follow-up. Two patients died suddenly while taking low dose amiodarone, and one died due to neurologic complications of his initial cardiac arrest. Three patients had one or more appropriate ICD discharges during follow-up; the times to first shock after ICD implantation were 23, 197 and 1,124 days. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that patients with HCM who survive an episode of VT/VF remain at risk for a recurrent event. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy appears to offer the best potential benefit regarding outcome.     

植入型心律转复除颤器不适当识别和治疗的发生率及常见原因

目的 植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）是恶性室性心律失常患者惟一有效的治疗措施。不适当识别和治疗是ICD最常见的并发症，也是导致ICD患者再住院最主要的原因。本文旨在评价本中心的ICD患者不适当识别和治疗的发生率及常见原因。方法 入选2000年1月至2005年12月在本中心因室性心律失常植入ICD并能定期随访的50例患者。根据患者心律失常特点和心功能情况程控ICD的各项参数，定期随访，询问ICD中所有信息，打印、存盘并对储存的腔内电图进行逐条分析，以确定ICD诊断是否准确以及治疗是否有效，判断有无ICD不适当识别和治疗。结果 38例患者在随访期间发生了心律失常事件，ICD共记录到491次室性心动过速（VT）或心室颤动（VF）事件（VT383次，VF108次），其中有11例（22％）发生过≥1次的不适当识别和治疗事件。14．3％（55／383）的VT事件为不适当识别，并导致了78次抗心动过速起搏（ATP）治疗和9次电击治疗。VF不适当识别的发生率为26．9％（28／108），并导致了56次不适当电击事件。结论 植入新一代ICD患者中，不适当识别和治疗发生率仍较高。不适当识别和治疗最常见的原因是心房颤动（房颤）伴快速心室率，占50％以上；其次是由于电磁干扰或肌电干扰所致。     

Dofetilide reduces the frequency of ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies

Dofetilide Reduces VT/VF and ICD Therapies . Background: Patients with an implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and ventricular arrhythmias leading to ICD therapies have poor clinical outcomes and quality of life. Antiarrhythmic agents and catheter ablation are needed to control these arrhythmias. Dofetilide has only been approved for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. The role of dofetilide in the control of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with an ICD has not been established. Objective: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of dofetilide in a consecutive group of patients with an ICD and recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) and/ or ventricular fibrillation (VF) after other antiarrhythmic drugs have failed to suppress these arrhythmias. Methods: We studied 30 patients (age 59 ± 11; 5 women) with symptomatic VT or VF and ICDs for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. These patients had an average of 1.8 ± 4.5 episodes of VT/VF per month despite antiarrhymic therapy. Twenty‐one patients (70%) had recurrent appropriate ICD therapies prior to initiation of dofetilide, and 9 (30%) VTs below the programmed detection rate of the ICD. Twenty‐three patients (77%) had coronary artery disease. Mean ejection fraction was 30 ± 14% and 26/30 (87%) had congestive heart failure. All patients had previously failed 2 ± 1 antiarrhythmic drugs including amiodarone (n = 19) and sotalol (n = 10). Results: During the first month of treatment, 25 patients (83%) had complete suppression of VT/VF and of the 21 patients with ICD therapies 16 (76%) had no therapies during the first month of treatment. During a follow‐up period of 32 ± 32 months, dofetilide reduced the monthly episodes of VT/VF from 1.8 ± 4.5 to 1.0 ± 3.5 (P = 0.006). Monthly ICD therapies decreased from 0.9 ± 1.4 to 0.4 ± 1.7 (P = 0.037). In 9 patients that presented with slow VTs under the ICD detection zone, dofetilide reduced monthly VT/VF episodes from 0.7 ± 0.6 to 0.1 ± 0.1 (P = 0.01) and 6 (67%) had no further ICD therapies. Dofetilide was discontinued in 13 patients (43%) after 24 ± 30 months due to failure to control VT/VF (n = 7), placement of a left ventricular assist device (n = 3), catheter ablation (n = 1), heart transplantation (n = 1), and left ventricular restoration surgery (n = 1). There were 7 documented deaths (2 patients died suddenly; 3 patients of progressive heart failure; and 2 of non‐cardiac causes). Conclusions: In patients with an ICD and ventricular arrhythmias, dofetilide decreases the frequency of VT/VF and ICD therapies even when other antiarrhythmic agents, including amiodarone, have previously been ineffective. Recurrences still occur in some patients requiring catheter ablation, mechanical support, or heart transplantation. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23 p. 296‐301, March 2012.)     

Dilatative Kardiomyopathie—wohin schlägt das Pendel aus?

Patients who present with an impaired left ventricular (LV) function of nonischemic origin (EF < or = 35%), should first undergo intensified heart failure therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers and diuretics. If the impairment of LV function persists for 3-9 months despite adequate therapy, the implantation of a defibrillator (ICD) seems to be reasonable for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in these patients. If patients present with non-sustained ventricular tachycardias, ICD implantation and treatment with amiodarone are probably equally effective and better than mere heart failure therapy. In patients presenting with an indication for biventricular pacing, a biventricular ICD should be used.     

心室再同步心脏转复除颤器的临床应用及疗效分析

目的观察心室再同步心脏转复除颤器(CRT-D)对慢性心力衰竭合并恶性室性心律失常患者的疗效。方法9例均为男性,心功能(NYHA分级)Ⅲ～Ⅳ级,ORS波时限>130ms,左室舒张末期内径>60mm,左室射血分数(LVEF)<0.35伴二尖瓣返流,均有恶性室性心律失常发作病史。观察患者CRT-D置入前,置入后1,3,6,12,24及36个月的心功能各项参数变化、生活质量(QOL)评分以及并发症、心血管事件。结果随访22.6±6.7(13～35)个月,发生术中心力衰竭加重和术后电极脱位并发症各1例;CRT-D治疗期间无死亡,LVEF、心功能NY-HA分级等心功能评价指标术后持续改善,QOL评分较术前明显提高,3例发生12次室性心动过速/心室颤动均被CRT-D成功纠治。结论CRT-D能明显改善慢性心力衰竭患者的心功能,提高生活质量,降低心力衰竭导致的病死率;同时还可防治心脏性猝死。