心衰犬单纯左室起搏方式的疗效观察

【目的】评价单纯左室起搏方式治疗心衰的疗效。【方法】建立12只左束支传导阻滞的心衰犬模型,采用自身对照方法随机行右心房一右室心尖部（RVA）、右心房-双心室（Bi—V）、右心房-左室（LV）起搏,起搏频率180次／分钟,每种起搏方式起搏前及起搏稳定15rain后行彩色多普勒超声心动图检查,测定左心／室舒张末期直径（LVEDd）、左室射血分数（LVEF）、室间机械延迟（IVMD）、室间隔与左室后壁运动延迟（SP—wMD）、左心室12个节段达峰时问的标准差（Ts—SD）。【结果】单纯左室起搏时：与起搏前及右室心尖部起搏相比,LVEDd、IVMD、SPWMD、Ts—SD减小,LVEF增大,其差异有显著性（P〈0．05）;与双室起搏相比,上述指标间无显著性差异（P〉0．05）。【结论】单纯左室起搏方式能够改善心室不同步及心功能,可做为心脏再同步化治疗（CRT）心衰的一种选择方式。     

右室双部位起搏对犬心电图及血流动力学的影响

[目的]研究右室双部位起搏对犬QRS波时限(QRSd)及血流动力学的影响.[方法]12只犬,每只犬随机行右室心尖部(RVA)、右室流出道(RVOT)、右室双部位(RV-Bi)、双心室(Bi-V)起搏,起搏频率为150次/分,起搏稳定15 min后测定QRSd、平均肺动脉压(mPAP)、肺毛细血管楔压(PCWP)、心输出量(CO).[结果]①同RVA相比,RVOT、RV-Bi、Bi-V起搏时均有QRSd减小,CO增加,差异有显著性;②RV-Bi起搏时:与RVA和RVOT)相比,QRSd、mPAP、PCWP减小,CO增加,差异有显著性;与RV-Bi起搏相比,上述指标间无显著差异.[结论]RV-Bi起搏的心电及血流动力学效果明显优于RVA和RVOT起搏,基本等同于Bi-V起搏.     

双心室同步起搏治疗充血性心力衰竭

目的:初步观察双心室同步起搏治疗充血性心力衰竭的疗效.方法:3例原发性扩张型心肌病患者,心功能NYHA分级Ⅳ级,均符合双心室同步起搏治疗的指征,植入了右房+双心室三腔起搏器;其中左心室电极导线经冠状静脉窦插入心脏侧静脉或侧后静脉.结果:3例患者临床症状改善,心功能由NYHA分级Ⅳ级提高至Ⅱ～Ⅲ级,超声心动图示左心室舒张末期内径减少19.5%,左心室射血分数增加26.5%,二尖瓣反流减轻;心电图QRS时限缩短.结论:双心室三腔同步起搏对某些有适应证的难治性心力衰竭患者,可使心功能得到改善.     

双心室起搏治疗充血性心力衰竭

１引言充血性心力衰竭ＣＨＦ是常见的难治性心脏疾病,其患病率和病死率一直居高不下,全世界估计有２２５０万ＣＨＦ患者而且以每年２００万的速度递增,晚期ＣＨＦ的５年病死率高达５０％,心功能越差,病死率越高。ＣＨＦ已成为导致心血管疾病死亡的重要原因。虽然药物治疗ＣＨＦ已经取得了重要进展,尤其是血管紧张素转化酶抑制药和β受体阻滞药的应用已使ＣＨＦ患者的生存率和生活质量明显改善,但对晚期心功能纽约心脏学会,ＮＹＨＡⅢ～Ⅳ级的ＣＨＦ患者预后仍较差。心脏移植治疗是治疗晚期ＣＨＦ的最佳方法,但供体的…     

双心室起搏与右心室起搏对充血性心力衰竭急性心功能的影响

目的最近研究提示心脏再同步治疗有效地改善了慢性心肌病心力衰竭患者心功能。本研究旨在探讨双心室和右心室起搏对心功能的相对影响。方法 15例慢性心力衰竭患者心功能Ⅲ级,左心室射血分数〈35%,QRS〉130ms和二尖瓣反流。安装心房-双心室再同步起搏器。彩色多普勒超声心动图观察心功能变化。结果急性双心室和右心室起搏并未影响左心室内径和短轴缩短率,也不影响左心室射血速度和排血量。左心室压力上升和下降峰速率无明显变化。等容收缩时间缩短（P〈0.05）,但不影响等容舒张时间。增加Z比例（P〈0.05）。缩短二尖瓣反流时间（P〈0.05）,对二尖瓣环和三尖瓣环运动幅度和峰速率无明显影响。双心室和右心室起搏之间无明显差别。结论双心室起搏改善了慢性心肌病心功能。双心室和右心室起搏无明显差别。双心室起搏是一种有前途的心脏再同步治疗方法。     

双心室同步起搏治疗进展性充血性心力衰竭初探

进展性充血性心力衰竭的临床治疗十分棘手,即使最佳的药物治疗方案亦难以改变心力衰竭进行性加重的趋势。近来,双心室同步起搏治疗进展性充血性心力衰竭取得初步结果,现将我院完成1例该手术结果报告如下。     

右心室不同部位起搏对心功能的影响

目的研究右心室不同部位起搏对患者心功能的影响,探求最有利的永久性右心室起搏部位。方法 54例Ⅱ度Ⅱ型或Ⅲ度房室传导阻滞行永久性起搏器的患者,按起搏部位分为右心室心尖(RVA)组、右心室流出道(RVOT)组、右心室流入道(RVIT)组,分别观察三组术前及术后6个月QRS间期(QRSd)、左心室射血分数(LVEF)、每搏输出量(SV)、每分输出量(CO)、左心室收缩末内径(LVESD)、左心室舒张末内径(LVEDD)的差异,并比较三组间术后6个月上述参数的差异。结果与术前相比,三组起搏术后6个月QRSd均显著增加(P<0.01);RVA组起搏术后6个月LVEF、SV、CO均显著降低(P<0.05);RVOT组与RVIT组起搏术后6个月LVEF、SV、CO均无显著变化(P>0.05);三组起搏术后6个月LVESD、LVEDD均无显著变化(P>0.05)。三组间起搏后6个月QRSd有统计学差异,QRSd依次为RVA组>RVOT组>RVIT组(P<0.01);而三组间起搏后6个月LVEF、SV、CO、LVESD、LVEDD无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论右心室流入道起搏QRSd最小,可能是理想的右心室起搏部位。     

双心室起搏治疗充血性心力衰竭对生活质量的影响

目的观察双心室起搏治疗充血性心力衰竭术后对患者生活质量的影响.方法对4例在我院植入双心室起搏器的患者观察术前、术后3个月QOL、LVEF值、6 min步行距离及临床症状变化情况.结果临床症状明显改善,6 min步行距离由222.50±31.52 m提升为361.25±22.43 m,术前、术后相比P<0.05;LVEF值由(24.50±4.50)%提升为(34.50±8.30)%,P<0.05;QOL由68.50±6.20降至28.75±5.62,P<0.05;体力尺度由29.75±3.54降至12.00±3.76,P<0.05.结论双心室起搏治疗充血性心力衰竭能明显改善临床症状,提高心功能和生活质量.     

双心室同步起博治疗充血性心力衰竭

目的：初步观察双心室同步起博治疗充血性心力衰竭的疗效。方法：3例原发性扩张型心肌病患者,心功能NYHA分级Ⅳ级,均符合双心室同步起搏治疗的指征,植入了右房＋双心室三腔起搏器;其中左心室电极导线经冠状静脉窦插入心脏侧静脉或侧后静脉。结果：3例患者临床症状改善,心功能由NYHA分级Ⅳ级提高至Ⅱ－Ⅲ级,超声心动图示左心室舒张末期内径减少19．5％,左心室射血分数增加26．5％,二尖瓣反流减轻;心电图QRS时限缩短。结论：双心室三腔同步起搏对某些有适应证的难治性心力衰竭患者,可使心功能得到改善。     

双心室起搏治疗充血性心力衰竭疗效分析

目的:分析双心室起搏治疗充血性心力衰竭的临床疗效。方法:选取2017年6月~2018年6月收治的充血性心力衰竭患者7例,均行双心室起搏治疗,随访6个月,观察术前、术后3个月、术后6个月患者心功能指标(左室舒张末期内径、E/A、左室射血分数、左房内径)及心电图指标(QRS宽波、P-R间期)、6 min步行距离。结果:术后3个月、术后6个月患者左室舒张末期内径、E/A、左房内径低于术前,左室射血分数高于术前,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后3个月、术后6个月患者QRS宽波、P-R间期短于术前,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后3个月、术后6个月患者6 min步行距离长于术前,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:双心室起搏治疗充血性心力衰竭能有效改善患者心功能,缩短心电图QRS宽波、P-R间期时限,提高患者运动耐力。     

高龄老年人右室心尖部及室间隔上部起搏对心功能的影响

【目的】探讨高龄老年人右室心尖部（RVA）和室间隔上部（RVUS）起搏对心功能的影响,寻找最佳起搏部位。【方法]89例行DDD起搏器治疗的患者：男84例,女5例,平均年龄84（75～95）岁,分为RVA组44例,RVUS组45例。对比分析两组起搏器间术前、术后3个月、6个月和1年心脏超声指标：心排血量（CO）、每搏输出量（sV）、射血分数（EF）、左室舒张末内径（LVDd）和血脑利钠肽（BNP）等的变化。【结果】RVA组治疗后心功能较起搏治疗前恶化,且随着起搏时间的延长恶化程度加重,而RVUS组心功能较起搏治疗前明显改善,且随着起搏时间的延长改善的越明显,与RVA组比较,具有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。【结论】高龄老年人RVUS优于RVA,可明显改善心功能,值得在高龄老年人中推广。     

Upgrading from Single Chamber Right Ventricular to Biventricular Pacing in Permanently Paced Patients with Worsening Heart Failure: The RD-CHF Study

Background: Biventricular (BiV) stimulation lowers morbidity and mortality in patients with drug-refractory congestive heart failure (CHF), depressed left ventricular (LV) function, and ventricular dyssynchrony in absence of indication for permanent cardiac pacing. This pilot, single-blind, randomized, cross-over study examined the safety and efficacy of upgrading conventional pacing systems to BiV stimulation in patients with advanced CHF .
Methods: We included 56 patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes III or IV despite optimal drug treatment and ventricular dyssynchrony (interventriclar delay >40 ms or LV preejection delay >140 ms) in need of pacemaker replacement. We compared the patients' functional status, arrhythmias, and standard echocardiographic measurements during 3 months of conventional, single right ventricular (RV) versus 3 months of BiV stimulation .
Results: There were 44 patients in the cross-over phase. QRS duration was shortened by 23% and LV preejection delay by 16% with BiV stimulation. NYHA functional class, 6-minute hall walk and quality of life score were significantly improved with BiV stimulation compared with single RV pacing by 18%, 29%, and 19%, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the ventricular arrhythmia burden or LV reverse remodeling between the 2 periods .
Conclusions: This pilot study showed that upgrading from RV pacing to BiV pacing significantly improves symptoms and exercise tolerance in chronically paced patients with advanced CHF and mechanical dyssynchrony .     

Bifocal Right Ventricular Cardiac Resynchronization Therapies in Patients with Unsuccessful Percutaneous Lateral Left Ventricular Venous Access

Biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with a lateral left ventricular (LV) lead cannot always be achieved. We report a single center experience of CRT utilizing a protocol that specifically required the implantation of a bifocal right ventricular (RV) lead system when lateral LV pacing could not be achieved. Consecutive candidates for CRT were included in the study. If strict criteria for lateral LV pacing were not met, they underwent implantation of a bifocal RV lead system with two 7F, active fixation leads, one placed septally at the apex, and the other in the high septal outflow tract. All patients were followed for 12 months and the two groups were compared. A biventricular (BiV) stimulation system was implanted in 44 patients, and a bifocal RV system in six. The demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. Both groups experienced a similar improvement in functional capacity, increase in 6 minutes walking distance, and decreased need for hospitalizations. The mean increase in LV ejection fraction was 11% in the bifocal RV group versus 10% in the BiV group. Though the tissue Doppler indices of LV synchrony improved earlier in the BiV group, (19% vs 10%) the improvement was similar in both groups at 6 months (23% vs 20%). The clinical improvements conferred by CRT can be matched by a bifocal RV system in selected patients. This alternate approach should be considered when implantation of a LV lateral lead was unsuccessful.     

Endocardial Biventricular Pacing

Simultaneous righ t and left ventricular pacing was performed in a 73-year-old man with coronary artery disease end-stage congestive heart failure and a DDD pacemaker implanted for sick sinus syndrome. An endocardial LV lead was introduced transseptally after unsuccessful attempts to enter the coronary sinus. This new approach for multisite pacing offers an alternative to epicardial LV from the coronary sinus or by thoracotomy.     

Bifocal Right Ventricular Resynchronization for the Failing Right Ventricle

The present case illustrates that in patients with right ventricular (RV) failure and right bundle branch block it is possible to resynchronize the RV without further worsening RV or left ventricular (LV) pump function, even in cases with various degrees of atrioventricular block. The acute response to different pacing configurations was analyzed in terms of dP/dt variations. Bifocal RV pacing (His bundle plus RV outflow tract pacing) achieved the best acute results and was chosen for permanent pacing. This pacing configuration was associated to clinical and echocardiographic improvement. (PACE 2011; 34:e78–e81)     

右心室不同部位起搏对心脏结构和左心功能的影响

[目的]对比研究右心室不同部位起搏对患者心脏结构和左心功能的影响.[方法]90例Ⅲ度或高度房室传导阻滞患者, 随机分为三组, A组行右室流入道（RVIS）间隔部起搏,B组行右室流出道（RVOT）间隔部起搏,C组行右心室心尖部（RVA）起搏. 观察三组手术中情况,监测术中血流动力学变化及手术曝光时间,比较三组术后随访的起搏器工作情况,心电图QRS波宽度,左心功能及血浆中B型钠尿肽（BNP）的差异.[结果]术中监测血流动力学,A组及B组明显优于C组.术后随访观察,A组及B组心电图QRS波宽度明显窄于C组,A组及B组具有更好的心脏功能.[结论]右心室间隔部起搏无论右室流出道起搏还是右室流入道间隔部起搏都是安全,有效的,比右室心尖部起搏更有利于双心室电激动的同步性,且长期对心脏结构及心功能影响也较少.     

双心室再同步起搏对慢性心力衰竭患者短期疗效观察（附37例分析）

目的：观察心脏再同步化治疗对慢性心力衰竭（CHF）患者的短期临床疗效。方法：对37例CHF患者行双心室再同步起搏治疗前和起搏后6个月的心功能分级（NYHA）,左室射血分数（LVEF）,6min步行试验,心电图QRS波群时限,最大摄氧量（VO2MAX）,生活质量（QOL）作自身对比分析。结果：NYHA,LVEF均有明显改善;QRS时限缩短;6min步行距离由298.48±80.60m上升至375.31±82.51m,提高了25%;VO2MAX绝对值（L.min^-1）由768.18±325.24升至918.39±443.87,VO2MAX相对值（L.min^-1.kg^-1）由12.95±3.95提高至15.52±5.67,QOL评分由22.70±16.10降至8.86±9.40,均有显著差异。结论：双心室起搏能够有效地改善具有心室传导延迟、心脏收缩不同步的慢性心力衰竭患者的心功能,提高生活质量,是治疗慢性心力衰竭的有效方法。     

Serial Changes in Right Ventricular Apical Pacing Lead Impedance Predict Changes in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Functional Class in Heart Failure Patients

Pacing impedance has been proposed to monitor the clinical status of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). This study examined whether changes in right ventricular (RV) pacing impedance correlate with changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class during long-term follow-up in pacemaker recipients with CHF. The study included 67 patients, 70 ± 12 years of age, in NYHA class II or III, and with a mean LVEF = 29 ± 8% at implant. LVEF, NYHA class, and bipolar pacing impedance at the RV outflow tract (RVOT) and apex (RVA) were measured at implant and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of follow-up. At implant, impedance was similar in RVOT (548 ± 115 Ω) and RVA (571 ± 174 Ω). Between implant and 3 months, mean impedance decreased (P < 0.0001) at both the RVOT (472 ± 62 Ω) and RVA (488 ± 86 Ω), LVEF increased (43 ± 14%, P < 0.0001), and the NYHA class decreased from 2.4 ± 0.5 to 2.1 ± 0.6 (P = 0.0001). Changes in RVA impedance correlated with changes in LVEF (r = 0.45, P = 0.002). A 50 Ω decrease in RVA impedance corresponded to a 3% decrease in LVEF. RVA impedance decreased significantly as NYHA class increased from I to IV (P = 0.04). There was no correlation between impedance measured at the RVOT and LVEF or NYHA class. A decrease in bipolar pacing impedance at the RVA was associated with worsening LVEF and the NYHA class. The use of pacing impedance to monitor the clinical status in CHF is dependent on the RV pacing site.