普通电极导线行右房左室或双心室起搏的初步临床观察

探讨普通电极导线置入心脏静脉起搏左室的可行性。选择 9例患者为研究对象 ,其中扩张型心肌病 3例、缺血性心脏病 3例、其他 3例 ,均伴不同程度的心力衰竭 ,心功能Ⅱ～Ⅳ级。所有患者都安置DDD起搏器。窦性心律伴房室阻滞 (AVB)或完全性左束支阻滞 (CLBBB)患者 ,行右房左室顺序起搏 ;房颤患者行双心室起搏。左心室起搏是将普通右心室导线 (MedtronicCapSureSP 4 0 2 3)通过冠状窦送入心脏静脉施行的。结果 :7例成功 ,2例失败。导线定位在左室后静脉 1例、后侧静脉 3例、侧静脉 3例。术中测左室起搏阈电压、阻抗和R波振幅分别是 0 .7± 0 .2V、6 2 3± 6 6Ω、10 .1± 6 .0mV。术后 2～ 18个月阈电压、阻抗分别是 0 .5± 0V、5 2 1± 5 1Ω。术后 1～ 2周平均心功能从2 .9级改善到 1.9级 ,平均心胸比值从 0 .6 1缩小到 0 .5 7,平均左室射血分数从 0 .39升至 0 .4 4。随访期未发现左室导线脱位 ,膈肌起搏等并发症。结论 :普通电极导线置入心脏静脉长期起搏左心室是可行的、牢靠的。     

程控仪磁头移位致埋藏式心脏复律除颤器心室颤动再识别失灵 …

患者男性 ,6 1岁 ,因冠心病 (陈旧性前壁心肌梗死、室壁瘤、心功能不全 )住院期间 3次心室颤动 (室颤 )经抢救幸存而于 1997年 9月 12日接受埋藏式心脏复律除颤器 (ＩＣＤ)治疗。ＩＣＤ埋藏术 :局麻下于左胸大肌与胸小肌之间做囊袋 ,电极导线Ｓｐｒｉｎｔ6 932经穿刺送入左锁骨下静脉 ,先端至右室心尖部。导线测试结果 :Ｒ波振幅 12 8ｍＶ ,斜率 2 5 8ｍＶ/ｓ,起搏阈值 0 5Ｖ ,起搏阻抗 5 2 0Ω ,电击阻抗 5 8Ω。静脉注射安定 2 5ｍｇ ,患者熟睡后采用模拟器和Ｔ波电击法诱发室颤并测定除颤阈值(ｄｅｆｉｂｒｉｌｌａｔｉｏｎｔｈｒｅｓ…     

三度房室传导阻滞患者右室主/被动电极导线起搏的临床观察

目的观察不同电极(主动/被动)导线对三度房室传导阻滞患者的心脏功能、QRS波宽度、起搏参数的影响。方法将80例三度房室传导阻滞患者随机分两组,一组患者行主动电极导线右室间隔(RVS)起搏,一组行被动电极导线右室心尖部(RVA)起搏。分析两组心功能左室大小、左室射血分数(LVEF)、QRS波宽度、起搏参数变化。结果右室间隔起搏较心尖部起搏阈值、电极阻抗在术后1周及术后3月下降(P0.05),感知差异无统计学意义(P0.05);QRS波宽度RVS、RVA分别为(130±20)ms、(160±30)ms,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);心脏超声左室大小及LVEF术后3月两组无统计学意义(P0.05);但术后1年随访RVS及RVA组分别为:左室大小(47.30±1.97)mm及(49.01±2.40)mm,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);LVEF值(62.70±2.15)%,及(59.46±3.39)%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论对于起搏完全依赖患者,右室间隔部起搏的双室同步性优于右室心尖部起搏,且1年随访对心功能影响也较后者小。     

心外膜电极导线在心脏再同步左室起搏中的应用(附二例报道)

目的报道2例心外膜电极导线在心脏再同步治疗(CRT)左室起搏中的应用及结果。方法2例均因心脏靶静脉解剖结构问题不能经心脏静脉途径置入左室电极,其中1例为右室双部位(心尖部+流出道间隔)起搏3个月后无效的患者。全麻后气管插管,在左第4肋间腋前线处切口,进胸后切开心包,用缝线将心外膜电极固定于左室侧后下壁,通过皮瓣下隧道把左室电极送入囊袋并与脉冲发生起搏器左室孔相联。结果2例手术顺利,无并发症。术后左室同步性明显好转,射血分数增加,心功能改善。结论心外膜导线在CRT左室起搏中的应用是安全、可行的,术后短期随访可获得良好的临床疗效。     

经永存左上腔静脉植入心脏再同步化起搏除颤器二例

两例扩张型心肌病患者均符合心脏再同步化治疗(CRT)Ⅰ类适应证而行CRT起搏除颤器(CRTD)安置术。术中均发现存在永存左上腔静脉,且均与上腔静脉无交通支(头臂静脉缺如)。心脏静脉粗大,冠状静脉分支较少。可供选择的靶静脉均为心中静脉。均自右侧路径植入右房及右室除颤电极导线。例1自冠状静脉口成功送入左室电极导线至靶静脉,例2因心中静脉太靠近冠状静脉口,而粗大的冠状静脉口使鞘管不能很好的支撑,多次尝试未果后选择自左侧永存左上腔静脉内送入左室递送系统并成功将左室电极植入心中静脉,经皮下隧道将左室电极拉至右侧与脉冲发生器相联。     

右室流出道放置心室除颤电极导线的研究现状

植入型心律转复除颤器的右室除颤电极导线通常放置于右室心尖部,但近来研究显示长期右室心尖部起搏会导致心脏收缩和舒张功能下降,另外,当右室心尖部起搏阈值和/或除颤阈值较高时,需改变除颤电极导线的放置位置,以达到最佳的治疗效果。相对于右室心尖部而言,右室流出道放置除颤电极导线有一定的优势。现对右室流出道放置除颤电极导线的相关问题做一简要的综述。     

鞘中鞘联合双导丝技术易化左室电极导线植入一例

一例心脏再同步化治疗-除颤器植入患者,术中冠状静脉造影显示左室侧后静脉迂曲,且起始部与冠状静脉主干夹角锐利,导丝难以送入靶静脉。利用鞘中鞘联合双导丝技术,顺利将左室电极导线送入左室侧后静脉,极大的缩短了左室电极导线植入手术时间,减少了射线曝光量。     

心脏再同步化起搏除颤器患者右室电极的位置对临床疗效以及室性心动过速发生的影响

正背景:目前心脏再同步化起搏除颤器患者右室电极的位置对临床疗效以及室性心动过速发生影响的资料还很有限。方法:研究心脏再同步化起搏除颤器试验中行心脏再同步化起搏除颤器治疗1 089例患者中的742例(68%),主要终点为心力衰竭或死亡,次要终点包括室性心动过速(VT),心室颤动(VF),或死亡或单独的VT/VF。结果:86例右室电极位于右室间隔部或右室流出道(非右室心尖部组)。656例右室电极位于右室心尖部(右室心尖部组)。两组主要终点事件无差异[危险比(HR)0.98,95%可信区间(CI)0.54~1.80;P=0.93]。两组超声指标变化也无差异     

主动电极右室间隔部起搏的临床应用

目的 观察主动电极行右室流出道间隔部起搏的疗效.方法 以2008年5月至2013年5月在新乡市中心医院植入心脏起搏器的135例患者为研究对象,依据电极植入部位的不同分为四组:单腔起搏器(VVI)右室心尖部起搏组(52例,A组)、VVI右室间隔部起搏组(31例,B组)、双腔起搏器(DDD)右室心尖部起搏组(33例,C组)和DDD右室间隔部起搏组(19例,D组).分析四组在术后即刻及术后1、6、12、24个月的起搏阈值、导线阻抗、QRS波时限和心功能相关指标.结果 四组手术过程顺利,无并发症发生.B、D组术后即刻的起搏阈值较A、C组偏高,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).四组的起搏感知及阻抗均无明显差异.随访1年后,A、B、C组患者的心功能指标较D组有所下降,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 右室流出道间隔部起搏较右室心尖部起搏更符合生理性起搏的特点,对心功能及心室重构的不良影响明显小于右室心尖部起搏.因此,DDD右室间隔部起搏是一种较为理想的心脏起搏方式.     

不同起搏部位对正常人体心肌复极离散的影响

目的 :观察正常人心脏不同部位或 2个部位同时起搏时的电生理及心室肌复极差异的变化。方法 :15例接受射频消融术后的患者 ,常规检查排除器质性心脏病。经冠状静脉窦将 1根标测电极送至左心室表面静脉分支 ,另 1根Pacing MAP电极送达右室心尖部 ,记录局部单向动作电位 (MAP)。分别起搏左心室心外膜、右心室心内膜及上述两部位同时起搏 ,行S1S1、S1S2 程序刺激。记录测量QRS波时限、QT间期、Tp Te 间期、MAP时程 (MAPD)等指标及心律失常事件。结果 :体表心电图上QT间期、Tp Te 间期在左室心外膜起搏 (376 .2 6ms、12 2 .5 9ms)、双心室起搏 (36 6 .4 2ms、12 4 .2 3ms)明显较右心室心内膜起搏 (349.33ms、10 4 .14ms)延长 (P <0 .0 1) ,伴有右室心尖部局部MAPD的相应变化。在相同总阵次的程序刺激中 ,左室心外膜起搏与双心室起搏时的室性心律失常多于右室心内膜起搏时 (P <0 .0 5 )。结论 :左室心外膜参与起搏后可能会增大心室肌的跨室壁复极差异 ,伴有复极时间的延长 ,从而使室性心律失常易于发生。     

小儿右室流出道起搏

对于一些需要安装永久起搏器的患者来讲,由于易于固定,起搏阈值低等优点,右心室起搏常将起搏电极置于心尖部,但长期随访发现,心尖部起搏可改变心室激动顺序,导致心室收缩不同步,造成二尖瓣反流、心房颤动和心功能不全。研究发现右室流出道起搏对左室功能的保护较右室心尖部起搏有利,由于右室流出道起搏靠近His束,电活动近似正常生理状态,可使左右心室电-机械活动更协调,从而抑制心室重构并保护心功能,因此,右室流出道起搏是替代右室心尖部起搏的较好选择。     

右室流出道间隔部与心尖部起搏对心功能的影响

目的了解右室流出道间隔部起搏和右室心尖部起搏参数的差异及对心功能的影响。方法65例安装DDD起搏器的患者随机分为右室心尖部（RVA）与右室流出道间隔部（RVS）起搏进行置入时及术后3个月起搏参数、左室射血分数的分析。结果两组基线资料无显著差异，术后15min及3个月两组的起搏阂值、感知、阻抗均无差异，术后3个月右室流出道间隔部组左室射血分数显著高于右室心尖部组（0．57±0．04vs0．50±0．03，p〈0．05）。结论右室流出道间隔部起搏安全可行，且对心功能的影响优于右室心尖部起搏。     

不同部位起搏对心脏收缩功能的影响

通过不同部位起搏 ,观察房室同步和心室激动顺序对人体心脏收缩功能的影响及起搏体表心电图QRS波时限与心输出量 (CO)的关系。 1 5例射频消融术后的病人分别按顺序进行右房、右室心尖部和室间隔起搏 ,采用心导管法分别测定右房压 (RAP)、肺动脉压 (PAP)、肺毛细血管楔压 (PCWP)和CO ,并计算心脏指数 ,记录心电图。结果 :右室心尖部起搏和室间隔起搏较右房起搏时RAP、PAP升高。心尖部起搏时CO较右房起搏降低 1 9.1 5 % (P <0 .0 1 ) ,室间隔起搏时CO较右房起搏降低 7.86% (P <0 .0 5 ) ,而较心尖部起搏提高 1 2 .2 4 % (P <0 .0 5 )。心尖部起搏和室间隔起搏较右房起搏体表心电图QRS波时限明显延长 ,而室间隔起搏体表心电图QRS波时限比心尖部起搏平均缩短 1 8.6ms(P <0 .0 0 1 )。CO和△QRS波时限的相关性分析表明两者呈负相关关系 (r=- 0 .30 ,P <0 .0 5 )。结论 :起搏体表心电图△QRS波时限与CO呈负相关 ,不同部位起搏对心脏收缩功能的影响不同 ,其中室间隔起搏较心尖部起搏更符合生理性起搏     

Comparison of the Acute Hemodynamic Effect of Right Ventricular Apex,Outflow Tract,and Dual‐Site Right Ventricular Pacing

Background: We studied the acute effect of pacing at the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT), right ventricular apex (RVA) and simultaneous RVA and RVOT—dual‐site right ventricular pacing (DuRV) in random order on systolic function using impedance cardiography. Methods: Seventy‐three patients (46 males), aged 52–89 years (mean 71.4 years) subjected to routine dual chamber pacemaker implantation with symptomatic chronic II or atrioventricular block, were included to the study. Results: DuRV pacing resulted in significantly higher cardiac index (CI) in comparison to RVOT and RVA and CI at RVOT was higher than at RVA pacing (2.46 vs 2.35 vs 2.28; P < 0.001). In patients with ejection fraction >50% significantly higher CI was observed during DuRV pacing when compared to RVOT and RVA pacing and there was no difference of CI between RVOT and RVA pacing (2.53 vs 2.41 vs 2.37; P < 0.001). In patients with ejection fraction <50%, DuRV and RVOT pacing resulted in significantly higher CI in comparison to RVA pacing while no difference in CI was observed between RVOT and DuRV pacing (2.28 vs 2.21 vs 2.09; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Dual‐site right ventricular pacing in comparison to RVA pacing improved cardiac systolic function. RVOT appeared to be more advantageous than RVA pacing in patients with impaired, but not in those with preserved left ventricular function. No clear hemodynamic benefit of DuRV in comparison to RVOT pacing in patients with impaired systolic function was observed. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol 2010;15(4):353‐359     

Effects of Multisite Ventricular Pacing on Cardiac Function in Normal Dogs and Dogs with Heart Failure

INTRODUCTION: We studied the effects on cardiac function of pacing two right and two left ventricular sites in normal and failing hearts with a normal QRS duration. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hemodynamic parameters were studied in isoflurane-anesthetized dogs with normal hearts and dogs with heart failure induced by rapid ventricular pacing. Unipolar intramyocardial electrodes were placed at the high right atrium and the apex (A) and base (B) of the left (L) and right (R) ventricles (V). Data were collected after pacing for 5 to 20 minutes. In normal dogs, without bundle branch block (BBB), pacing at either the apex or the base of the left ventricle increased cardiac output by approximately 10% compared with right ventricular apex (RVA) pacing with an AV delay of 0 msec. Positive dP/dt increased approximately 10% during four-site left and right ventricular apex and base (LRVAB) pacing compared with RVA pacing. In dogs with heart failure but without BBB, cardiac output increased by 8.5% (P < 0.01) during four-site ventricular pacing with AV delays of 0 and 60 msec compared with RVA pacing. Positive dp/dt increased by 23.5% (P < 0.001) with an AV delay of 0 msec and 9.6% (P < 0.001) with an AV delay of 60 msec during LRVAB pacing compared with RVA pacing. His-bundle pacing was associated with increased cardiac output compared with RVA pacing. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that pacing simultaneously at two right and two left ventricular sites significantly improves cardiac function compared with single RVA pacing, with or without sequential AV synchrony, in dogs with rapid ventricular pacing-induced heart failure and no BBB.     

间隔部主动固定电极对老年患者心功能的影响

目的探讨右室间隔部（RVS）主动固定电极对植入永久起搏器的老年患者心功能的影响。方法入选78例植入永久起搏器的老年患者,分为RVS起搏组（实验组,植入主动固定电极,n=42）和右室心尖部（RVA）起搏组（对照组,植入被动固定电极,n=36）,以超声心动图评价两组术前、术后6个月左室缩短率（FS）、每搏输出量（SV）、心输出量（CO）、左室射血分数（LVEF）、E／AI：L值的差异。结果术前两组心功能状况无明显差异（P〉0．05）。术后6个月,RVS起博组与术前相比较,FS、SV、CO、EF、E／A虽有下降趋势,但差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;RVA起博组在术后6个月FS与对照组差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,但SV、CO、EF、E／A均高于RVS起博组（P〈0．05）。两组起搏阈值、感知、阻抗起搏比例及平均心率等差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论RVS起搏对患者心功能的影响优于右室心尖部起搏。     

Entrainment of Ventricular Tachycardia with a Permanent Biventricular Pacemaker

Biventricular pacing has been introduced as a treatment for congestive heart failure. These devices presently pace and sense from two disparate ventricular sites. Antitachycardia pacing (ATP) is used for termination of sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and has been incorporated with simultaneous dual site ventricular pacing for treatment of VT. We report a case of entrainment of sustained monomorphic VT in a 62-year-old female with an ischemic cardiomyopathy and VT, who received a biventricular pacemaker-implantable cardioverter defibrillator, Contak CD (Guidant, St. Paul, MN). Biventricular pacing sites were at the right ventricular apex and the middle of the anterior cardiac vein on the left ventricle. The entrained VT has a left bundle branch block and left axis deviation morphology with a cycle length of 350 msec. ATP at 270 msec produced concealed entrainment of an induced VT. Only one pacing site demonstrated capture. The inability to capture both pacing sites simultaneously was the result of ventricular refractoriness at one of the sites during ATP of the VT. The entrance and exit points of the loop for VT appeared to rest between the two pacing sites in the intraventricular septum. This case illustrates one of the sensing limitations of today's biventricular pacing defibrillator systems.     

Measurements of conduction times with catheter electrodes during pacing from different ventricular sites.

Filtered bipolar catheter electodes, I mm apart, were used to pace and record from the high right atrium, right ventricular apex, right ventricular outflow tract, right ventricular inflow tract, middle cardiac vein, great cardiac vein, and endocardium of the left ventricular septal surface. Right ventricular apex to middle cardiac vein and the middle cardiac vein to right ventricular apex conduction intervals gave a rough estimate of anteroposterior and posteroanterior "transseptal plus free left ventricular wall" conduction times, respectively. On the other hand, the right ventricular apex to left ventricular septal surface and left ventricular septal surface to right ventricular apex intervals represented pure "transseptal" conduction times, since both sets of electrodes were in contact with the respective septal surface. During stimulation of the intermediately located right ventricular inflow tract propagation to the right ventricular apex and right ventricular outflow tract was longer than between these two sites. Moreover, conduction was almost as delayed to the right ventricular apex and right ventricular outflow tract as it was to the left ventricular septal surface. These findings were attributed to the peculiar electrophysiological behaviour of the right ventricular inflow tract muscle. Pacing from different segments of the great cardiac vein produced QRS morphologies and arrival of excitation patterns consistent with the relation between the anatomical location of this structure and the recording electrodes. However, from this study no inferences could be drawn regarding the conduction velocity or specific conduction pathways used by the stimulus in its journey from stimulating to recording areas.