植入式心律转复除颤器治疗扩张型心肌病并频发心室颤动1例

恶性室性心律失常是扩张型心肌病（DCM）患者最常见的死因之一，植入式心律转复除颤器（ICD）可有效地预防恶性室性心律失常引起的猝死。我院对DCM合并频发室性心动过速（VT）及心室颤动（VF）的患者安装ICD 1例，体会如下。     

植入心律转复除颤器后发生电风暴一例

植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）电风暴由严重的室性心律失常引起，最常见于植入ICD的早期，是植入ICD后所特有的现象，即发生了需要多次转复的快速、成簇的室性心动过速（室速）或心室颤动（室颤）。[第一段]     

69例植入型心律转复除颤器治疗患者的随访

目的 对全国50家医院69例植入型心律转复除颤器（implantable cardioverter defibrilla-tor,ICD)的患者通过较长期随访获得的实际经验,以期促进和提高我国ICD的应用水平。方法 资料来自全国50家医院的门诊随访、电话询问或厂家随访,通过常规心电图、动态心电图及ICD程控分析仪调出的资料,对串屠 情况及ICD工作情况进行分析,结果 平均随访2.3年中有30例患者接受成功的ICD治理,占全组患者43.5%,总共发作快速心律失常276次,其中VT236次占85.5%,VF40次占14.5%,VT由ATP终止135次,占57.2%,由CV终止101次,占42.8%,VF经DF（除颤）40次,全部一次成功,2例VT加速转成VF,2例无休止发作VT,电击成功,但瞬间又转为VT,2例服胺碘酮后VT频率减慢（140-100次/min),69例中有6例死亡,其中半数因心力衰竭加重所致,结论 ICD的治疗效果肯定,需加强随访及时修改参数,更准确地识别和治疗快速室性心律失常,同时需注意药物的辅助治疗,积极改善心功能,还应加强对患者的心理教育。     

经静脉植入心律转复除颤器治疗恶性室性心动过速一例

报道我院1987年～1997年更换心脏起搏器58例次的经验，探讨有关更换起搏器的几个问题。     

全皮下植入式心律转复除颤器：现状与展望

植入式心律转复除颤器（ICD）于1980年由Mirowski等首次植入人体并应用于临床,30多年来,ICD技术不断进步,功能日臻完善。同时大规模随机对照临床试验证实ICD可以有效终止恶性心律失常的发作、显著降低心脏性猝死（SCD）的发生,如今ICD已经广泛应用于SCD的一级和二级预防。目前,绝大多数的ICD植入都采用经静脉电极导线系统,通过外周静脉将电极导线置入右心室。     

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。     

植入型心律转复除颤器治疗恶性室性心律失常的疗效评价

目的评价单中心40例植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)治疗恶性室性心律失常的疗效及安全性。方法40例恶性室性心律失常包括室性心动过速(室速)或心室颤动(室颤)患者接受ICD治疗,男性35例,女性5例,平均年龄(49±15)岁,成功随访35例,应用体外程控仪获得ICD储存资料并结合临床随访资料进行分析。结果40例患者均成功植入ICD;35例患者平均随访25个月,其中26例患者共记录室速和室颤事件763阵,ICD成功除颤224阵(成功率99．1％),抗心动过速起搏1次成功终止室速375阵(成功率71．8％),低能量同步转复22阵(成功率100％);2例患者因窦性心动过速和心房颤动伴快速心室反应发生误放电4次。术后大多数患者联合应用抗心律失常药物。至随访期末,死亡4例,3例死于顽固性心力衰竭,1例死于肺栓塞。结论ICD联合应用抗心律失常药物能有效治疗恶性室性心律失常,预防心脏性猝死。     

植入型心律转复除颤器抗心动过速起搏治疗室性心动过速疗效评价

目的恶性室性心律失常（室性心动过速,心室颤动）是心脏性猝死的主要直接原因.而大部分患者先发生室性心动过速（室速）,继而蜕变为心室颤动（室颤）.研究表明,抗心动过速起搏（ATP）可有效终止室速.本文观察了172例植人植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）的患者应用ATP终止室速的效果.方法172例植入ICD的患者,男性137例,女性35例,平均年龄52.8岁.103例患者术前有阿-斯综合征发作史,其中75例有电击除颤史.137例术前记录到室速或室颤心电图.植入ICD患者定期随访,随访时应用体外程控仪调出ICD储存记录,分析ICD治疗中ATP治疗室速的效果.结果在平均随访37个月中,ICD共记录室速l 789阵.其中,316阵为短阵室速,在ICD治疗前自行终止;1 473阵室速接受了ICD有效治疗.其中ATP治疗成功981阵（成功率66.6%）,余492阵室速由低能量转复终止.在981阵ATP治疗成功的事件中,ICD第一次发放ATP成功终止室速513阵（成功率52.3%）.结论ICD抗室速起搏功能可有效终止大多数室速,对于植入ICD前有明确室速史的患者,ICD治疗应尽量先采用ATP治疗,以减少ICD放电,延长ICD使用寿命及避免电击时的痛苦,即所谓的＂无痛性ICD治疗＂.     

经静脉植入心律转复除颤器的临床应用

植入型心律转复除颤器（ｉｍｐｌａｎｔａｂｌｅ　ｃａｒｄｉｏｖｅｒｔｅｒ　ｄｅｆｉｒｉｌｌａ－ｔｏｒ,ＩＣＤ）的应用大大降低了由室性心动过速（室速）、心室颤动（室颤）引起的心脏性淬死的发生率。成为治疗室性快速心律失常最有效的方法。 资料和方法５例均为男性,年龄３９－７４岁。基础心脏病为冠心病３例（其中１例为前壁心肌梗死）、心肌病１例和扩张性心肌病１例。心肌梗死患者住院期间３次发生室颤,经电除颤转为窦性心律。其余４例均有院外晕厥发作。扩张性心肌病患者同时伴有左束支阻滞及一度房室阻滞。抗心律失常药物疗…     

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。     

经静脉安置埋藏式心脏复律除颤器的临床应用

对 5例恶性室性心律失常患者安置埋藏式心脏复律除颤器 (ICD)治疗。 5例均为男性 ,年龄 39～ 74岁。冠心病 (1例为前壁心肌梗死 ) 3例 ,心肌病、扩张型心肌病伴左束支阻滞及Ⅰ度房室阻滞各 1例。药物治疗效果不佳。3例冠心病及 1例心肌病患者置入单腔ICD ,扩张型心肌病置入双腔ICD。 5例均成功置入ICD。平均起搏阈值0 .5 2V ,平均R波振幅 15 .7mV。随访 6～ 36个月 ,4例患者出现快频率室性心动过速 (简称室速 ) ,经抗心动过速起搏及低能量电击转复为窦性心律 ,平均电击能量 5 .4J。 1例发生室上性心动过速导致ICD误放电治疗 ,经重新设置室速频率窗口 ,未再出现误放电。结论 :ICD能有效转复恶性室性心律失常 ,双腔ICD因增加了心房电极 ,在改善血液动力学、预防房性及室性快速心律失常、降低不适当ICD治疗等方面优于单腔ICD     

Subcutaneous Array with Active Can Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Configuration: A Follow‐up Study

Background. Novel nontransvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) configurations are sometimes required for small children and children with complex congenital heart disease at risk for sudden death. Mid‐ to long‐term follow‐up of these nontraditional implant techniques is not well known. We assessed the mid‐term performance of a subcutaneous lead technique used in our practice. Methods. Between July 2002 and November 2003, 4 patients (age 2.1–8.5 years, weight 13–33.3 kg, height 90–126.7 cm) received an ICD with a single‐finger (n = 3) or 2‐finger (n = 1) subcutaneous array with an active abdominal can and epicardial pace/sense lead. The subcutaneous tunnel was created via a subxiphoid incision using a tunneling tool within a sheath along the seventh intercostal space and extended posterior to the spine. Diagnoses included long QT syndrome (n = 2), idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (n = 1), and idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 1). Implantable cardioverter defibrillator indications included syncope (n = 2) and cardiac arrest (n = 2). Results. Mean follow‐up was 22.3 ± 13.9 months. During follow‐up, 1 patient underwent heart transplantation and the other 3 patients underwent generator replacement secondary to a manufacturer’s advisory. There was 1 appropriate and successful shock for ventricular fibrillation. This patient experienced a second episode of ventricular fibrillation that the ICD discharge failed to terminate. The arrhythmia spontaneously resolved. There were no inappropriate shocks. There was 1 instance of false detection of ventricular fibrillation because of intermittent T wave oversensing but therapy was not administered. There were no infections, lead fractures, or other complications during follow‐up. Conclusion. This novel nontransvenous ICD configuration can be used safely in a select group of pediatric patients and allows for the applicability of this life‐saving technology to small children at high risk for sudden cardiac death.     

埋藏式心脏转复除颤器安置的临床经验

总结非开胸经锁骨下静脉穿刺安置埋藏式心脏转复除颤器 (ICD)的手术方法、除颤阈值 (DFT)测定及ICD工作参数设置等临床经验。 10例患者 ,6例有反复晕厥病史。 2例晕厥时心电图证实为心室颤动 (简称室颤 ) ,体外电除颤成功 ,另 8例心内电生理均诱发出持续性室性心动过速或室颤。其中冠心病 8例 (1例合并Brugada综合征 ) ,扩张性心肌病 1例 ,原发性室颤 1例。 5例术前口服胺碘酮治疗。结果 :全部经锁骨下静脉置入ICD ,术中所有患者成功诱发室颤 ,并一次电击成功。手术时间 92± 2 7min。DFT≤ 2 0J,电击阻抗 4 1.2± 15 .3Ω ,R波高度 16 .3± 6 .6mV ,无手术并发症。结论 :经锁骨下静脉置入ICD方法简单 ,安全可靠 ;术前口服适量胺碘酮对术中诱发室颤无影响。     

Exploding Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

A 79-year-old man with a pectoral implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) system underwent periodic defibrillation threshold testing 18 months after implant. Attempted delivery of a 15-J shock caused a light flash above the pocket and a loud "pop." High-voltage lead impedance was <20 ohms. Pocket exploration revealed insulation abrasion of the high-voltage portion of the single-coil right ventricular lead. The outer shield of the active can pulse was perforated and scorched due to arcing. Device analysis confirmed a shorted transistor in the high-voltage output circuit. Unsuspected physical contact between high-voltage electrodes of opposite polarity within the pocket can cause catastrophic ICD system failure.     

埋藏式心脏复律除颤器治疗恶性室性心律失常的随访观察

对２２例埋置了埋藏式心脏复律除颤器（ＩＣＤ）的有晕厥史的恶性室性心律失常患者进行了随访，观察ＩＣＤ的治疗效果。２２例中扩张型心肌病８例、肥厚型心肌病２例、冠心病７例、ＱＴ延长综合症１例，４例未发现器质性心脏病。所有患者均经临床证实有室性心动过速或（和）心室颤动（ＶＴ／ＶＦ）发作。ＩＣＤ具有多项治疗及信息储存记忆功能（即第三代）。随访时通过体外程控仪调出ＩＣＤ储存的资料进行分析。平均随访７．１（１～２３）个月，１１例患者（５０．０％）ＶＴ／ＶＦ发作１１８次，其中５４次为非持续性ＶＴ，均自行终止；接受ＩＣＤ治疗的６４次为ＶＴ／ＶＦ发作，４５次为ＶＴ，２２次由ＩＣＤ的抗心动过速起搏（ＡＴＰ）终止、１６次由低能量（２～１５Ｊ）转复终止、２次发作为窦性心动过速（误判为ＶＴ），其余５次ＶＴ在ＡＴＰ治疗过程中加速转为ＶＦ，由高能量除颤终止。ＩＣＤ诊断的ＶＦ发作共有１９次，发生于４例患者，有１例患者接受除颤１６次，４次系为频率超过ＶＦ感知频率的ＶＴ。１９次发作均被ＩＣＤ有效除颤终止。２例扩张型心肌病患者，１例术后３个月死于心功能衰竭，另１例术后２个月反复发作ＶＦ，多次接受ＩＣＤ除颤治疗，最后死于心功能衰竭。结果表明常规进行?     

肥厚型心肌病患者埋藏式心脏自动复律除颤器(ICD)植入后的长期生存率和风险

肥厚型心肌病是最常见的一种心肌病,而心脏性猝死是肥厚型心肌病患者的首位死因。埋藏式心脏自动复律除颤器（ICD）作为一种最有效的治疗手段被推荐用于改善猝死高危患者的长期生存率。但是,尽管埋藏式心脏自动复律除颤器在肥厚型心肌病患者猝死预防方面起到了不可否定的作用,但术后不良事件及进展性心力衰竭的风险居高不下,导致了部分植入ICD的患者预后改善不理想,引人深思,笔者就次做一综述。     

植入型心律转复除颤器非适当放电治疗的分析

目的观察植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）工作情况,通过寻找非适当放电治疗的原因以减少非适当治疗的发生。方法对19例ICD患者随访观察3～57个月,通过ICD储存体心电信号分析．结合病史,确定非适当放电治疗。非适当放电治疗指对窦性心动过速、室上性心动过速、心房颤动、心房扑动、非持续性室性心动过速的ICD放电治疗。结果19例中无ICD放电治疗的患者10例（52．63％）,适当放电治疗6例（31．58％）,非适当放电治疗3例（15．79％）。总计放电治疗11次（9例）,其中非适当放电治疗4次（36．36％）。结论非适当放电治疗的原因复杂多样,其中心房颤动、室上性心动过速是常见原因,调整合适的识别工作模式增强ICD识别功能可以降低非适当放电治疗发生率。     

埋藏式心脏复律除颤器临床应用分析

９例药物难治性室性心动过速（ＶＴ）病人接受埋藏式心脏复律除颤器（ＩＣＤ）治疗，其中冠心病７例，扩张型心肌病、房间隔缺损修补术后各１例。８例术前有电击复律／除颤史。９例术前、术后均接受胺碘酮治疗，随访９．８±８．０个月，７例经ＩＣＤ储存资料证实共发生ＶＴ６６６次，１００％被ＩＣＤ有效终止，首次治疗程序成功率为９７％。４例ＶＴ经电击复律，２例因窦性心动过速而误放电，６例有疼痛与恐惧感。１例同时埋置了ＩＣＤ与单极电极导线起搏器，随访１６个月未发现任何不良的相互作用。心理障碍是ＩＣＤ治疗值得重视的问题，医生应协助病人尽量缩短心理调整过程，使之尽快对埋置的ＩＣＤ进行适应。     

Impact of the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial on Clinical Practice

Background: The first multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial (MADIT‐I) was a landmark study that identified a significant reduction in mortality among high‐risk patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy treated prophylactically with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), yet the direct and indirect impact of this trial on clinical practice is unknown. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the 679 patients who underwent primary ICD implantation between 1994 and 2000 at a single academic center. The baseline characteristics of each patient were determined at the time of ICD implantation, and the vital status of all patients was determined as of January 1, 2004. Results: The number of patients who received an ICD based on the MADIT‐I criteria increased from 1.4% in 1994 to 6.1% in 2000. An additional 60 patients were identified that met many but not all of the trial criteria and consisted of patients with a history of a recent revascularization or myocardial infarction, syncope, or an ejection fraction ≥35%. The number of patients who received ICDs in this expanded MADIT‐I subset also grew from 5.6% in 1994 to 14.6% in 2000. Mortality during a mean follow‐up of 4.7 years was significantly higher in the MADIT‐I group than in the expanded MADIT‐I, or the remaining primary prevention and secondary prevention subsets. Conclusion: The MADIT‐I has not only led to an increase in the number of patients undergoing prophylactic ICD implantation, but in clinical practice it has also been extrapolated to a broader population that has a different degree of risk than originally studied.