双心室起搏埋藏式心脏转复除颤器的安置

评价一次性置入双心室起搏埋藏式心律转复除颤器 (双腔ICD)的安全性和有效性。5例冠心病冠状动脉搭桥术后的患者 ,伴有严重的慢性充血性心力衰竭和恶性室性心律失常 ,置入双腔ICD。结果 :5例左室电极导管和双腔ICD均一次成功置入 ,左室电极放入冠状静脉的侧后枝 ,急性起搏阈值 0 .8± 0 .6V ,电阻 72 2± 12 8Ω ,R波振幅18.6± 5 .3mV ,电流 1.6± 0 .5mA ,而双心室起搏时其起搏电极参数均优于左室电极 ,除颤阈值≤ 14J。结论 :对伴严重慢性充血性心力衰竭和恶性室性心律失常的患者 ,置入双腔ICD是安全、易行的。     

双腔植入型心律转复除颤器临床应用

目的以往应用的单腔心律转复除颤器(ICD)常会发生误识别，产生误放电。此外，单腔心室起搏可使心功能降低。双腔ICD可克服单腔ICD上述弊端。本文报道12例双腔ICD的临床应用。方法12例患者，男性10例，女性2例，平均年龄52岁，均有院外晕厥史，术前证实室性心动过速7例，心室颤动5例。12例患者中4例伴有阵发性心房颤动(房颤)，3例伴有阵发性房性心动过速(房速)，5例伴有心动过缓及心功能不良。12例患者均植入了双腔ICD(美敦力公司，Gem DR)。心室导线常规植入右心室心尖部，心房导线为主动固定的螺旋电极导线，此导线顶端带有弹簧除颤电极，将心房导线固定于右心耳靠外侧处，以避免发生交叉感知。结果12例患者均顺利植入双腔ICD，除颤阈值均小于20J。平均心室起搏阈值0．9V，R波高9．8mV。心房起搏阈值1.4V，P波高2．6mV。在平均随访6．8个月中，ICD共发放抗心动过速起搏(ATP)45次，低能量转复11次，除颤4次，无误放电发生。5例伴心动过缓者，心功能无进一步恶化。结论双腔ICD由于增加了心房电极导线，可提高对房性心律失常的识别能力，从而减少误放电。对伴有房性心律失常及心动过缓者应推荐使用双腔ICD。     

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     

经静脉植入心律转复除颤器的临床应用

目的 :应用植入型心律转复除颤器 (ICD)治疗致命性室性心律失常。方法 :4例均为男性 ,年龄 39～ 74岁。 3例冠心病 ,1例扩张型心肌病 ,伴LBBB +I° AVB。药物治疗不佳。 3例冠心病植入单腔ICD ,扩张型心肌病植入双腔ICD。结果 :4例均成功植入ICD。平均起搏阈值 0 4 5v。平均R波振幅15 75mv。随访 8～ 36个月 ,3例出现快频率室速 ,经抗心动过速起搏及低能量电击治疗转复为窦律 ,平均电击能量 5 4J。 1例单腔ICD发生室上性心动过速导致误放电 ,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。     

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治疗与相关技术的最新进展

植入型心室复律除颤器即通常所指的植入型心律转复除颤器 (ICD) ,是目前公认防治致命性室性心律失常 (室速/室颤 )的一线治疗措施。广义上讲 ,植入型心律转复除颤器还包括植入型心房复律除颤器 (IAD)和房室双腔复律除颤器。近年来IAD的实验研究不断增多 ,并已在临床小规模应用 ,可望成为治疗房颤的另一有效手段。房室双腔复律除颤器集IAD和ICD功能于一身 ,能够放电终止房颤、室速和室颤。1　植入型心房复律除颤器目前临床应用的IAD ,体积与普通起搏器相仿 ,重量在10 0g以内 ,除颤脉冲波形为双相 ,放电能量 2～ 10J。其右心房电极主…     

双心室同步房室顺序起搏植入型心律转复除颤器

目的 观察双心室同步房室顺序起搏植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)对扩张性或缺血性心肌病出现顽固性充血性心力衰竭同时伴有恶性室性心律失常时的治疗效果。方法 5例患者均为男性。心功能(NYHA分级)Ⅲ～Ⅳ级。QRS时限120～183ms，左心室射血分数(LVEF)≤0．30，左心室舒张末直径≥60mm，均有室性心动过速(室速)及心室颤动(室颤)发作史。药物治疗无效。分别植入右心房和心脏静脉左心室分支起搏电极导线，并植入右心室除颤电极导线，行房室顺序双心室同步起搏及抗室性心律失常治疗。随访观察患者临床症状、心功能、LVEF及室性心律失常的变化。结果 右心房、右心室和左心室导线感知和起搏参数均符合要求、右心室导线除颤阈值佳。起搏后QRS时限明显缩短，起搏前平均155ms，起搏后平均133ms，随访3～20个月，心功能术前平均3．4级，术后3个月平均2．4级；LVEF术前平均0．25，术后3个月0．29，1例术后6个月LVEF为0．34；5例患者共发生室速4次，均以31J的能量1次除颤成功。结论 双心室同步房室顺序起搏可改善心力衰竭患者的临床症状，增加LVEF，改善心功能。双心室同步起搏ICD具有良好的抗室性心律失常的功能。     

经静脉埋藏式三腔起搏心脏转复除颤器的临床应用

探讨经静脉埋藏式三腔起搏心脏转复除颤器 (BVP ICD)的临床应用。病例入选标准 :①缺血性心脏病、扩张性心肌病合并充血性心力衰竭。②左室射血分数 <0 .35。③QRS波时限 >130ms。④ 2 4h动态心电图、临床心电监护、腔内电生理检查中 ,任一项记录到明确室性心动过速 (VT)或心室颤动 (VF)。采用经锁骨下静脉和头静脉 ,分别置入右室电极导管到右室 ,右房电极导管到右心耳 ,左室电极经冠状静脉窦到冠状静脉后侧支 ,其中 1例为经静脉埋藏三腔双室起搏器 (BVP)升级为BVP ICD。结果 :双室起搏阈值 1.7± 0 .7V ,R波幅度 10 .3± 4mV ,双室电极阻抗 896 .2± 82Ω。4例先后 2次采用电击T波诱发出VT或VF ,并除颤成功。 3例因心功能差仅诱发 1次并除颤成功。最低有效除颤能量 2例 11J ,5例 2 0～ 2 1J ,手术时间 12 9.2 8± 4 7.3min。 7例随访 3～ 12个月 ,心功能改善 1～ 2级。 2例分别各有 1例除颤事件记录 ,7例全部存活。结论 :BVP ICD临床疗效较好 ,但设定首次电击能量时不宜太小 ,力争尽快转复心律 ,以策安全。慎用快速心室起搏 (Ramp)终止VT。     

面对ICD植入术中的除颤测试,我们在考量

<正>自上世纪80年代第一台埋置式心律除颤转复器(ICD)应用临床以来,是否需要在术中进行除颤阈值(DFT)测试一直是个有争议的问题。ICD施治的绝大多数是有恶性心律失常(室性心动过速,心室纤颤)的猝死(SCD)高危患者,所以ICD的除颤转复成功率必须得到保证。当室速室颤出现而药物、抗心动     

新一代双腔植入型心律转复除颤器治疗多形室性心动过速一例

双腔植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）已成为致死性室性心律失常的主要治疗手段.随着工艺技术的进展,双腔ICD提供房室顺序起搏有利于血流动力学的改善;能精确地区分室上性及室性快速心律失常;并能储存心房、心室的心内电图,提供更多、更确切的心律失常信息.     

Dual Chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Benefits and Limitations

Dual chamber ICD capable of providing dual chamber pacing (DDD) and ventricular arrhythmia therapy is now available. We report our experience of clinical performance of dual chamber ICDs amongst Chinese population.Methods: 9 patients (6 men and 3 women) received dual chamber ICDs, mean age 50 ± 18.8 years. The indications were ventricular fibrillation (VF) [5], hemodynamic intolerant ventricular tachycardia (VT) [3] and unexplained syncope plus positive induction of VF [1]. The underlying cardiac pathology were congenital LQT syndrome(1), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [2], coronary artery disease [2], rheumatic valvular disease [1], Brugada syndrome [1], arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia [1] and idiopathic VF [1]. Four patients have documented paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). All patients have defibrillation thresholds (DFT) determined with a binary search protocol starting at 12 joules (J) at implantation.Results: A total of 34 episodes of VF were induced at implantation with mean DFT 13.8 ± 7 J. The average shocking impedance was 40 ± 3.6 . The mean acute P wave measured 3.3 ± 1.3 mV and R wave measured 13.2 ± 3.2 mV. Atrial and ventricular thresholds, at pulse width 0.5 ms, averaged 0.8 ± 0.4 V and 0.4 ± 0.2 V. During follow-up period, 16 episodes of VF were documented and were successfully treated with the first programmed shock. In the patient with LQT syndrome, DDD was initiated to prevent pause-dependant VF. Three episodes of inappropriate therapy (15.8%) were delivered. One patient experienced 2 shocks after exercise. Stored electrograms showed sinus tachycardia with first degree heart block which was misdiagnosed as VT with retrograde 1:1 conduction. Another inappropriate therapy occurred with AF with fast ventricular response within the VF zone and VT therapy inhibitor was disabled.Conclusion: Dual chamber ICD allows combined benefits of DDD and VT/VF therapy. Storage of both atrial and ventricular electrograms provide more information in elucidation of nature of dysarrhythmias. Inappropriate shocks, though reduced, are still possible and the rigid algorithms of SVT discrimination from VT will need further published.     

Value of serial electropharmacologic tests in the treatment of sustained ventricular arrhythmias

The value of electropharmacological testing in patients (pts) with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias was studied in 46 consecutive pts (24 with sustained ventricular tachycardia (SVT) and 22 with cardiac arrest due to a ventricular tachyarrhythmia. Forty-two pts underwent a baseline electrophysiological study. The ventricular stimulation protocol included up to 3 extrastimuli during spontaneous rhythm and during paced ventricular rhythm at 100/min, 130/min, 160/min and brief bursts pacing at 2 ventricular sites. Ventricular tachycardia was induced in 37/42 pts (88%) (sustained in 32 pts and non sustained in 5 pts). Twenty nine pts underwent 79 trials of different drug regimens (mean 2.72 per pt, range 1-8). A totally successful drug regimen was found in 15/29 pts (51.7%) and a partially successful drug regimen in 11/29 pts (37.9%). Twenty-three pts were discharged on a drug regimen successful during serial electropharmacological testing (Group I) and 23 pts were discharged on an empiric drug regimen (Group II). Each pt was followed-up for a mean period of 15 months (range 1-74). Group I pts had fewer arrhythmia recurrence (SVT and/or sudden death) than Group II pts (2/23 vs 13/23 p less than 0.01). In conclusion electropharmacological testing is an useful tool in the therapy of pts with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias.     

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?     

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。     

Clinical and electrophysiologic predictors of ventricular tachyarrhythmia recurrence in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

INTRODUCTION: Not all patients experience recurrent sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias after placement of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). We evaluated the clinical and electrophysiologic predictors of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) recurrence following ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients (n = 133) underwent 4 +/- 3 serial electrophysiologic studies (EPS) over 50 +/- 26 months following ICD implantation. Sustained VT/VF could always be induced during follow-up EPS in 49 patients; sustained VT/VF was sometimes induced during follow-up EPS in 47 patients; and sustained VT/VF could never be induced during follow-up EPS in 37 patients. Spontaneous VT/VF requiring ICD therapy occurred in 107 patients during follow-up. Patients with sustained VT/VF that was always inducible or sometimes inducible during follow-up experienced more frequent episodes of VT/VF following ICD implant (20.5, 95% CI 12.7-33.0; and 17.8, 95% CI 11.3-28.1 episodes/patient respectively; vs 3.0, 95% CI 2.0-4.6 episodes/patient for patients with VT/VF never induced, P < 0.001). Inducibility of sustained VT/VF post-ICD implant (P < 0.001) and sustained VT as the presenting arrhythmia (P = 0.02) were independent predictors of spontaneous VT/VF recurrence. CONCLUSION: Reproducibly inducible VT/VF following ICD implantation predicts a high probability of VT/VF recurrence and identifies a cohort of patients who experience frequent episodes of VT/VF over time. Persistent noninducibility of sustained VT/VF identifies a group of patients who experience no or very few episodes of VT/VF recurrence.     

心脏性猝死的预防及我国埋藏式心律转复除颤器应用状况

目的通过对全国部分医院的回顾性调查研究,了解我国埋藏式心律转复除颤器(ICD)使用状况.方法回顾性分析了1996年1月18日到2003年1月31日,来自82家医院的173例ICD患者的临床情况,了解其基础病因、心律失常类型、ICD对心律失常的治疗情况以及ICD的并发症.结果 173例植入ICD患者,其中115例(66.5%)有各种器质性心脏病,以冠心病为最常见.植入患者中室性心动过速(VT) 106例(61.3%),心室颤动(VF) 34例(19.6%),VT合并VF 33例(19.1%).在平均随访27.8个月(1～86个月)中,82例 (47.4%)发生VT和/或VF,并接受ICD成功治疗;73.04%的VT通过抗心动过速起搏(ATP)终止;VF除颤成功率为100%;误放电率为2.0%.术后并发症发生率为2.3%,随访期间共有11例患者死亡,占6.4%.结论本研究的有限数据表明ICD治疗对我国患者带来的好处,但其应用尚处于起步阶段.     

Dual chamber arrhythmia detection in the implantable cardioverter defibrillator

INTRODUCTION: Dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) technology extended ICD therapy to more than termination of hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachyarrhythmias. It created the basis for dual chamber arrhythmia management in which dependable detection is important for treatment and prevention of both ventricular and atrial arrhythmias. METHODS AND RESULTS: Dual chamber detection algorithms were investigated in two Medtronic dual chamber ICDs: the 7250 Jewel AF (33 patients) and the 7271 Gem DR (31 patients). Both ICDs use the same PR Logic algorithm to interpret tachycardia as ventricular tachycardia (VT), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), or dual (VT+ SVT). The accuracy of dual chamber detection was studied in 310 of 1,367 spontaneously occurring tachycardias in which rate criterion only was not sufficient for arrhythmia diagnosis. In 78 episodes there was a double tachycardia, in 223 episodes SVT was detected in the VT or ventricular fibrillation zone, and in 9 episodes arrhythmia was detected outside the boundaries of the PR Logic functioning. In 100% of double tachycardias the VT was correctly diagnosed and received priority treatment. SVT was seen in 59 (19%) episodes diagnosed as VT. The causes of inappropriate detection were (1) algorithm failure (inability to fulfill the PR相似文献   

置入双腔起搏心脏复律除颤器及经腋静脉送入心内电极的初步临床体会

目的初步评价新型双脏起搏心脏复律除颤器抗室性心动过速／心室颤动（室速／室颤）及心动过缓起搏的临床效果,了解经腋静脉送人心房及心室电极的安全性及有效性。方法７例室速及（或）室颤同时伴有心动过缓患者接受了双腔起搏心脏复律除颤器治疗,其中冠心病５例、扩张性心肌病２例。心房及心室电极均在Ｘ线透视、静脉注人造影剂指导下,直接穿刺腋静脉,从该静脉送人。结果脉冲发生器埋在左上胸皮下５例,埋在胸大肌与胸小肌之间２例。仪器对所有室速／室颤均能及时识别并成功治疗,同时提供有效的房室顺序起搏功能。所有心内电极均成功地经腋静脉送人,无并发症。结论双腔起搏心脏复律除颤器不但能有效地治疗严重室性心律失常,而且提供可靠的房室顺序性起搏功能。经腋静脉送入电极安全、可靠。     

Tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation in the arrhythmogenic right ventricle (arrhythmogenic dysplasia of the right ventricle). Clinical and electrocardiographic spectrum

In this paper we report the arrhythmias recorded on basal ECG, on Holter monitoring or on exercise test, in 32 pts affected by arrhythmogenic right ventricle (ARV). A sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) was present in 11 pts a non sustained VT in 15 pts, a slow VT in 2 pts, a ventricular fibrillation (VF) in 3 pts and both sustained VT and VF in 1 pt. All but 1 case of sustained VT showed a LBBB like pattern. The heart rate during VT ranged between 170 and 280 beats/min. The frontal axis of the VT showed a wide range of deviation. Among non sustained VT, 9 cases had LBBB like pattern and 6 cases had polymorphic configuration. The 2 cases of slow VT showed LBBB like pattern with right axis deviation. A comparison between ventricular arrhythmias and RV impairment was made. The data obtained suggest that the effort plays an important role in the induction of VT in pts with localized RV impairment. In conclusion a wide spectrum of ventricular tachyarrhythmias is present in the ARV. Probably the RV "arrhythmogenic" zones and the electrophysiological mechanism causing the arrhythmias are various.