左右心室导线间距与心脏再同步治疗中即刻疗效的关系

目的探讨右心室起搏部位改变时,左、右心室导线间距对心脏再同步治疗（CRT）即刻疗效的影响。方法对25例符合适应证患者行CRT手术,术中将左心室导线植入侧壁或侧后壁,先后将右心室导线植入右心室流出道和右心室心尖部,分别测得主动脉速度血流积分及心肌收缩达峰时间标准差,同时比较此2种不同部位左、右心室导线间距,包括直接、垂直和水平距离（分别由正位及左侧位投影时测得）的差异。结果右心室心尖部起搏主动脉速度血流积分显著高于右心室流出道起搏[（15．76±2．29）cm对（14．71±2．12）cm,P〈0．001],QRS时限则显著较窄[（141．84±20．89）ms对（159．84±19．56）ms,P〈0．001]。右心室心尖部起搏侧位投影下的导线间距（校正后）显著大于右心室流出道起搏[（161．23±44．58）mm对（121．34±55．91）mm,P〈0．001],其垂直距离（校正后）亦显著大于后者[（97．65±45．73）mm对（39．41±23．51）mm,P〈0．001]。结论CRT术中改变右心室起搏部位时,侧位投影下的左、右心室导线间距较大者CRT手术即刻反应较佳。     

右心室起搏电极位置对心脏再同步化治疗老年慢性心力衰竭临床效果的影响

目的探讨不同右心室起搏电极位置对心脏再同步化治疗(CRT)老年慢性心力衰竭临床效果的影响。方法选择接受CRT的老年慢性心力衰竭病人84例,术中左室起搏电极位置为侧后壁者65例,非侧后壁者19例,根据术中右室起搏电极位置为右心室流出道间隔(RVOT)和右心室心尖部(RVA)分为RVOT组(n=34)和RVA组(n=50),比较各组病人治疗前后QRS波时限(QRSd)、纽约心脏病协会(NYHA)心功能分级以及心脏超声指标左室射血分数(LVEF)、左心室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)及左心室收缩末期内径(LVESD)的变化。结果RVA组LVEF显著高于RVOT组(P<0.05),NYHA分级、QRSd、LVEDD、LVESD在2组间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。左心室起搏电极在侧后壁者中,RVA亚组LVEF显著高于RVOT亚组(P<0.05),NYHA分级显著低于RVOT亚组(P<0.05),QRSd、LVEDD、LVESD在2组间差异均无统计学意义(P> 0.05)。在非侧后壁者中,RVA亚组与RVOT亚组各指标差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。RVA组和RVOT组病人CRT有效率的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 CRT对老年慢性心力衰竭的疗效受双室起搏位置的综合影响,右心室RVA起搏可能较RVOT起搏更具有临床优势,尤其是对于左心室为侧后壁起搏者,将右心室电极置于RVA有利于获得更好的疗效。     

右心室间隔部起搏在心脏再同步化治疗中的应用观察

目的:探讨优化右心室起搏部位对心脏再同步化治疗疗效的影响。方法:5例扩张性心脏病患者,男性3例,女性2例,平均心力衰竭病史(4.1±09)年,平均左心室射血分数(LVEF)31.5%±11%,平均左心室舒张末直径(LVEDD):(63.2±16.5)mm,QRS宽度:(143±32)ms。所有患者均符合(CRT)植入Ⅰ类适应证。左心室起搏导线根据心脏静脉分布尽可能置于心源性休克(CS)左心室侧枝或后侧枝,右心室起搏导线置于右心室流出道间隔部。术后观察起搏QRS波图形,LVEF变化及随访观察患者纽约心脏病协会心脏分级(NYHA)心功能,生活质量及心脏重塑变化。结果:5例患者均成功植入CRT,其中     

重度三尖瓣反流患者右心室起搏部位的选择

目的 比较重度三尖瓣反流患者起搏导线放置在心尖部或流出道间隔部的难易程度.方法 2013年1月至2013年10月复旦大学附属中山医院40例符合起搏器植入适应证合并重度三尖瓣反流的患者,按随机表将其随机分成A组（拟行流出道间隔部起搏）与B组（拟行右心室心尖部起搏）.术前测定所有患者右心室体部与流出道短轴缩短分数.术中记录2组植入心室导线的曝光时间和术中脱位情况.比较术中及术后3个月流出道间隔部起搏与心尖部起搏的阈值,感知、阻抗等电极参数.结果 A、B两组各20例,A组术中曝光时间显著短于B组[（113.5±33.8）s对（156.3±58.1）s,P=0.007],A组仅1例（5.0％）发生术中脱位,B组6例（30.0％）发生术中脱位,并行导线重置,差异有统计学意义（P=0.037）.两组间术中及术后3个月起搏导线参数差异无统计学意义.所有受试者右心室体部短轴缩短分数（FS）显著大于流出道（33.7％±5.4％对27.1％±4.4％,P＜0.01）.结论 重度三尖瓣反流患者将心室导线固定于右心室流出道间隔部比心尖部更为简单易行.     

左心室不同部位起搏对心脏再同步治疗效果的影响

目的 探讨左心室不同部位起搏对心脏再同步治疗（CRT）效果的影响.方法 2008年1月至2011年12月在中南大学湘雅二医院成功植入CRT起搏器/除颤器（CRT-P/D）患者41例.根据逆行心脏静脉多体位造影确定左心室导线起搏部位,按照右前斜位30°心脏长轴造影分为基底部组（n=15）、室中部组（n=26）和心尖部组（n=0）;按照左前斜位45°心脏短轴造影分为前壁组（n=9）、前侧壁组（n=10）、侧壁组（n=12）、后侧壁组（n=10）和后壁组（n=0）.随访记录并比较各组基线（术前）,术后7d,3、6、12、18、24个月时左心室射血分数（LVEF）、左心室舒张末期内径（LVEDD）、QRS时限、心功能（NYHA分级）、6 min步行试验、明尼苏达（Minnesota）心力衰竭生活质量评分、CRT参数变化及并发症情况.结果 ①41例患者无应答率为19.5％（8/41）;术后各随访时间点与基线时相比,所有患者LVEF升高、LVEDD下降、QRS时限缩短、心功能改善、6 min步行试验距离增大、明尼苏达心力衰竭生活质量评分下降（P＜0.05）;②随访3个月后各时间点,非前壁（前侧壁、侧壁或后侧壁）组在LVEF、心功能、6 min步行试验及明尼苏达心力衰竭生活质量评分等指标改善均优于前壁组（P＜0.05）;LVEDD下降各组间相比差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;前侧壁、侧壁和后侧壁组间相比,上述指标差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;③各随访时间点,基底部与室中部组间相比,LVEF、LVEDD、QRS时限、心功能、6 min步行试验及明尼苏达心力衰竭生活质量评分等指标改善差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;④所有患者术后随访CRT参数变化差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）,工作正常,无心力衰竭再入院、导线脱位、膈肌起搏、囊袋感染等不良事件.结论 ①CRT可使慢性心力衰竭患者长期获益;②左心室导线起搏部位前壁者CRT疗效可能较前侧壁、侧壁或后侧壁者?     

右心室流出道间隔部起搏对左室功能的影响

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36例，分为右心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）评价右室流出道间隔部与右室心尖部起搏的中远期血流动力学差异。结果术后平均随访10个月，结果显示RVOT起搏血流动力学优于RVA起搏，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论初步研究结果提示：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。     

右心室流入道间隔部起搏血流动力学研究

目的本文旨在对右心室流入道间隔部起搏的血流动力学进行分析,以确立右心室流入道间隔部起搏的临床地位。方法本研究通过射频消融房室结建立Ⅲ°房室传导阻滞模型,结合影像学及心电图定位方法于右心室流入道间隔部置入螺旋电极导线,并分别比较右心室心尖部、右心室流出道及右心室流入道间隔部起搏后急性血流动力学指标变化,并随访右心室流入道间隔部起搏2周后的血流动力学指标。结果即刻血流动力学研究结果显示,右心室流入道间隔部较心尖部和右心室流出道起搏心排血量高(P<0.05),左心室舒张末期压力较低(P<0.05),而右心室流入道间隔部起搏前后各项血流动力学无显著变化。结论右心室流入道间隔部起搏具有良好的血流动力学效应,可作为右心室心尖部起搏的替代起搏部位。     

左心室双部位双心室同步起搏两例

常规的心脏再同步治疗（cardiac resynchronization,CRT）是通过将右心房、右心室和左心室导线分别放置在右心耳、右心室心尖部（或问隔部）及心脏后或侧后静脉内来实现的。新近左心室双部位起搏（dualsite left ventficular pacing）逐渐引起人们的关注并开始应用于临床,国内尚罕见报道。现报道本中心植入的2例。     

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。     

右心室不同位点起搏对QRS时限的影响

目的 观察右心室不同起搏位点的QRS时限,为临床导线放置提供参考依据.方法 选择216例符合Ⅰ类或Ⅱa类起搏器植入适应证的患者,在放置心室导线过程中,分别在右心室心尖部、流入道、中位间隔部、高位间隔部和流出道等不同位点起搏右心室,记录起搏时的体表心电图,比较不同位点QRS时限和形态的差异.结果 与基础心电图QRS波比较,所有右心室起搏部位心电图QRS时限均明显增宽(P＜0.001)；以心尖部起搏QRS时限增宽(168±16) ms,其次为流入道(166±15) ms和流出道(165±15) ms；三者比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).间隔部起搏QRS时限明显缩短(P＜0.001),且QRS波形态和电轴正常.中间隔部最短(139± 19) ms,高位间隔部次之(153±14) ms,二者相比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).结论 在所有右心室起搏位点中,中间隔部起搏QRS时限最窄,且形态和电轴正常.中间隔部可能是右心室最理想起搏选择位点.     

Identification of the right ventricular pacing site for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) guided by electroanatomical mapping (CARTO).

BACKGROUND: The optimal left ventricle (LV) pacing site for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been investigated, but less is known about the optimal site in the right ventricle (RV). The present study examined whether electrical resynchronization guided by electroanatomical mapping (CARTO) results in mechanical resynchronization. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study group included 13 patients indicated for CRT: 10 with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, 2 with ischemic cardiomyopathy and 1 with cardiac sarcoidosis, (mean LV ejection fraction: 32+/-10%). CARTO of the RV septum was performed to identify the site with the most delayed conduction time during LV pacing. Hemodynamic measurements were performed during conventional biventricular pacing with the RV apex and LV (C-BVP) and during biventricular pacing with the most delayed site of the RV (d-RV) and LV (D-BVP). Lead placement at 15 coronary sinus veins was examined in the 13 patients. During pacing from anterolateral veins (n=2), the d-RV was the RV apex (RVA) in 1 patient and the mid-septum in the other. During pacing from lateral veins (n=9), the d-RV comprised the RVA (n=3), the mid-septum (n=5), and the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) (n=1). During pacing from the posterolateral veins (n=3), the d-RV was the RVOT in all cases. In 11 of 15 sites, d-RV differed from conventional RVA. Compared with C-BVP, D-BVP produced a significant improvement in LV dp/dt. Furthermore, RV mid-septum and LV pacing markedly increased LV dp/dt and pulse pressure (PP), but RVOT and LV pacing did not. D-BVP vs C-BVP: %LV dp/dt 30+/-20 and 15+/-15%, p<0.05; RV mid-septum and LV pacing vs C-BVP: %LV dp/dt 35+/-20 and 10+/-15%, p<0.02, and vs PP 33+/-20 and 10+/-29 mmHg, p<0.02. CONCLUSIONS: For pacing from the LV lateral vein, potential improvement of cardiac performance compared with that by conventional RVA placement may be realized with concomitant pacing from the d-RV (mid-septum).     

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.     

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。     

Preferred left ventricular lead position for upgrade from right ventricular pacing to cardiac resynchronization therapy

Introduction

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is well-established for treating symptomatic heart failure with electrical dyssynchrony. The left ventricular (LV) lead position is recommended at LV posterolateral to lateral sites in patients with left bundle branch block; however, its preferred region remains unclear in patients being upgraded from right ventricular (RV) apical pacing to CRT. This study aimed to identify the preferred LV lead position for upgrading conventional RV apical pacing to CRT.

Methods

We used electrode catheters positioned at the RV apex and LV anterolateral and posterolateral sites via the coronary sinus (CS) branches to measure the ratio of activation time to QRS duration from the RV apex to the LV anterolateral and posterolateral sites during RV apical pacing. Simultaneous biventricular pacing was performed at the RV apex and each LV site, and the differences in QRS duration and LV dP/dt_max from those of RV apical pacing were measured.

Results

Thirty-seven patients with anterolateral and posterolateral LV CS branches were included. During RV apical pacing, the average ratio of activation time to QRS duration was higher at the LV anterolateral site than at the LV posterolateral site (0.90 ± 0.06 vs. 0.71 ± 0.11, p < .001). The decreasing ratio of QRS duration and the increasing ratio of LV dP/dt_max were higher at the LV anterolateral site than at the posterolateral site (45.7 ± 18.0% vs. 32.0 ± 17.6%, p < .001; 12.7 ± 2.9% vs. 3.7 ± 8.2%, p < .001, respectively) during biventricular pacing compared with RV apical pacing.

Conclusion

The LV anterolateral site is the preferred LV lead position in patients being upgraded from conventional RV apical pacing to CRT.     

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     

The right ventricular septum presents the optimum site for maximal electrical separation during left ventricular pacing

Septum Presents the Optimum Site for Maximal Electrical Separation. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) benefits selected heart failure (HF) patients. The optimal placement of the right ventricle (RV) lead during biventricular pacing has not been assessed. Greater electrical separation (ES) between left ventricle (LV) and RV leads has been associated with better clinical outcomes. The site of maximal electrical separation(MES) in the RV is unknown. Methods: Prospective study of 50 CRT patients. The LV lead was placed in a postero‐lateral branch of the coronary sinus. ES was recorded at 6 sites within the RV during LV pacing at 600 milliseconds cycle length (CL). The median ES was recorded with a roving deflectable catheter at the RV outflow tract (RVOT), high septum, inflow septum, mid‐septum, apical septum and apex. Results: Mean age was 67 ± 7 years, 39 were male (78%). Thirty had ischemic etiology (60%). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 25 ± 7%, QRS duration pre and post was 165 ± 26 milliseconds and 138.5 ± 15.6 milliseconds (P < 0.001). Mapping ES showed a difference between 20 and 50 milliseconds distributed across the RV in the majority of patients (40/49). However, 7 subjects demonstrated delay distribution of between 50 and 82 milliseconds. ES was significant greater in the RV mid‐septum (161.2 ± 23.7 milliseconds) compared with RVOT (154.1 ± 20.8 milliseconds) and apex (148.0 ± 25.5 milliseconds; P < 0.001). The site of Maximal ES was most commonly found at the mid‐septum (40 patients, 80%) and only rarely at the RVOT (5, 10%) and apex (5, 10%; P < 0.01). Conclusion: MES was observed most commonly at the RV septum and rarely at the RV apex. Better correction of electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony by CRT may be achieved by placing the RV lead in a site outside of the apex in the majority of patients. Clinical studies exploring RV septal pacing in CRT seem warranted.