双腔起搏器最小化心室起搏功能的临床应用

目的探讨双腔起搏器的最小化心室起搏(MPV)功能减少心室起搏的有效性及对血流动力学及房颤发生率的影响。方法观察98例植入DDD/R起搏器患者(打开MPV功能组49例,关闭MPV功能组49例)术后3、6、12个月的随访结果。结果打开MPV功能起搏器组右室起搏百分比明显减少(P<0.05);打开MPV功能起搏器组房颤负荷百分比在术后6个月和12个月减少(P<0.05);两组在植入起搏器术前术后心脏指数、左室舒张末径、左房内径、左室射血分数比较均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论打开MPV功能起搏器组在减少不必要的右室起搏及减少房颤发生率方面均优于关闭MPV功能组。     

最小化心室起搏与超声心动图指导下优化房室间期的比较研究

目的：比较最小化心室起搏模式（ MPV）与超声心动图指导下优化房室间期（ OAVD）模式对病态窦房结综合征伴房室阻滞患者心功能及生活质量的影响。方法2009年9月至2012年6月于杭州市第一人民医院心内科就诊的40例诊断为病态窦房结综合征伴一度或二度房室阻滞植入双腔起搏器的患者采用随机数字表法分为2组：MPV组21例患者,开启MPV功能;OAVD组19例患者,在超声心动图指导下进行OAVD。在入组6、12个月后给予起搏器程控、6 min步行试验、明尼苏达生活质量评分、血浆脑钠肽（ BNP）、超声心动图等检查。结果两组患者基线指标差异无统计学意义。 MPV组患者的起搏房室间期显著长于OAVD组[（278．6±9．6） ms对（131．9±5．1） ms,P＜0．001）。 MPV组患者心室起搏比例在6个月后明显低于OAVD组（6个月：28．6%±37．8%对77．4%±37．5%,P=0．001;12个月：39．0%±41．5%对84．7%±31．1%,P=0．001）。两组患者血浆BNP水平、6 min步行试验、明尼苏达生活质量评分及超声心动图指标均差异无统计学意义（ P〉0．05）。结论 MPV虽能够显著降低心室起搏比例,但是在改善心功能及生活质量方面与OAVD差异无统计学意义。     

最小化心室起搏策略在病态窦房结综合征合并心衰患者中的临床应用

目的:比较心室起搏管理(managed ventricular pacing,MVP)和固定长房室间期(fixed long AV)两种最小化心室起搏策略,对双腔起搏器植入的病态窦房结综合征合并心衰患者中远期心脏结构和功能的影响. 方法:入选70例因病态窦房结综合征植入双腔起搏器的心衰患者,随机分为MVP组和固定长AV间期组,采用右室心尖部起搏方式,植入双腔起搏器后分别启用MVP模式和固定长AV间期模式.规范随访12个月后,比较两组患者心室起搏比例差异以及相应的心超参数变化和6 min步行试验结果. 结果:MVP组心室起搏比例较固定长AV间期组心室起搏比例明显减少(1.0％对11.3％,P＜0.01);固定长AV间期组左室射血分数术后12个月明显下降、E/A比值降低,而MVP组心功能指标则没有明显变化.术后12个月固定长AV组患者6 min步行距离明显缩短,而MVP组无明显缩短. 结论:因病态窦房结综合征植入双腔起搏器的心衰患者,在右心室心尖部起搏状态下,MVP模式较固定长AV间期模式对患者长期的心脏收缩和舒张功能负性影响较小.     

病态窦房结综合征患者房室全能型起搏不同房室间期对其心功能的影响

目的观察病态窦房结综合征患者在植入房室全能型(atrioventricular,DDD)起搏器后设置不同的房室(atrioventricular,AV)间期对其心功能的影响。方法收集南京医科大学附属淮安第一医院2013年至2014年行DDD起搏器治疗的病态窦房结综合征患者60例,通过AV间期150 ms、180 ms、240 ms将患者分为3组,每组20例。比较起搏器术前及不同随访时间的超声心动图指标、纽约心脏协会(New York Heart Association,NYHA)心功能分级、氨基末端脑钠肽前体(N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide,NT-proBNP)、心室起搏比例情况。结果 3组患者在随访半年、1年、2年期间,150 ms组心室起搏比例最高(48.70%±8.44%、49.26%±8.86%、50.32%±7.67%),240 ms组最低(2.75%±1.29%、2.40%±1.27%、2.70%±9.23%)。3组随访期间左心房收缩末期内径(left atrial end diastolic dimension,LAESD)比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。3组随访半年时的左心室舒张末期内径(left ventricular end diastolic dimension,LVEDD)、左心室射血分数(left ventricular ejection fraction,LVEF)、NYHA心功能分级、NT-proBNP比较,差异无统计学意义(P=0.068、0.206、0421、0.079);随访1年(P=0.004、0.020、0.035、0.001)、两年(P0.001、0.001、0.047、0.001)差异有统计学意义。将150 ms患者的AV间期程控为180 ms半年后随访,患者心室起搏比例降低(50.32%±7.67%vs. 9.89%±2.05%,P0.05),LVEDD缩小[(56.26±3.93)ms vs.(53.21±2.53)ms),P0.05],LVEF增加(46.05%±2.44%vs. 49.47%±3.66%,P0.05),NYHA心功能分级上升(2.33±0.69 vs. 1.67±0.57,P0.05)、NT-proBNP浓度下降[(551.37±28.31)pg/mL vs.(460.71±18.22)pg/mL,P0.05],差异有统计学意义。结论 DDD起搏器对患者心功能的影响与心室起搏比例、起搏时间有关,并且这种影响具有一定的可逆性。     

房室结优先功能减少右室不良起搏的评价

目的评估心室自身优先功能(VIP)在减少不良右室起搏百分比中的作用。方法因病态窦房结综合征患者植入ST.Jude DC5816、5826型双腔起搏器63例,在关闭及开启VIP状态下各工作3个月,比较在两种状态下右室起搏百分比情况。结果在起搏器植入后6个月随访中证实,VIP开启状态下右室起搏百分比为(23.9±10.5%)明显低于VIP关闭状态下右室起搏百分比(67.5±9.2%),差异具有统计学意义(p<0.05)。结论 VIP功能有助于减少右室不良起搏百分比。     

双腔起搏器最小化心室起搏功能的临床初步观察

目的:评价开启最小化心室起搏功能的双腔起搏器减少心室起搏的有效性、安全性及对患者生活质量的影响。方法:入选40例接受双腔起搏治疗的患者,将开启最小化心室起搏功能的20例DDD患者纳入最小化心室起搏组,其余20例无或未开启最小化心室起搏功能的DDD患者纳入传统双腔起搏组。通过程控随访观察患者心房和心室的起搏比例;通过SF-36健康调查简表观察2组患者的生活质量。结果:没有观察到与最小化心室起搏功能有关的不良反应;最小化心室起搏组患者心房起搏比例与传统双腔起搏组相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),最小化心室起搏组患者心室起搏比例较传统双腔起搏组显著降低(34.1±24.2%∶62.2±25.4%,P<0.01);较传统双腔起搏组SF-36得分有增加的趋势,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:最小化心室起搏功能可以安全、有效的降低患者心室起搏的比例,但不能显著改善患者的生活质量。     

老年病态窦房结综合征及高度房室传导阻滞患者冠状动脉造影结果分析与评价

病态窦房结综合征 (sicksinussyndrome,SSS)、高度房室传导阻滞 (highdegreeatrioventricularblock ,HAVB)多发于老年人 ,而老年患者常并存有冠心病。我们对SSS、HAVB患者行永久人工起搏器植入术同时行选择性冠状动脉 (冠脉 )造影 ,旨在探讨冠脉病变的发生率及与SSS、HAVB之间的关系。　　一、对象和方法　　 1.对象 :选择我院 1997年 1月至 2 0 0 2年 6月SSS、HAVB患者 ,在行永久人工起搏器植入同时选择性冠脉造影者 5 0例 ,取其中资料完整者 34例作为研究对象 ,其中男性 17例 ,女性 17例 ,年龄 6 5～ 76岁 ,平均 (70± 3)岁。…     

最小化心室起搏减少病态窦房结综合征患者心房颤动的发生

目的 探讨最小化心室起搏对病态窦房结综合征(病窦综合征)患者心房颤动(房颤)发生的影响.方法 入选2003年4月至2008年4月因病窦综合征植入DDD起搏器的患者112例,随机、单盲分为最小化心室起搏组56例(A组),和传统双心腔起搏组56例(B组),分别于3、6个月进行随访,以后每年1次,每次随访内容包括病史询问、起搏器程控、超声心动图.主要观察指标为房颤发生率,次要观察指标为超声心动图(包括左心房内径、左心室舒张末内径和左心室射血分数)和因心力衰竭再入院情况.结果 平均随访时间为(33.7±17.1)个月,与B组相比,A组的心室起搏平均比例显著减少(10.1%vs92.3%,P＜0.001),但两组的心房起搏平均比例相近(73.6%vs72.8%,P=0.98).B组累计房颤发生率明显低于A组(RR=0.65,95%可信区间0.59～0.93,P=0.015).与植入前相比,A组各阶段超声心动图变化差异无统计学意义;而B组左心房内径逐渐增大.术后2年起,B组左心房内径与植入前相比,或与同期的A组相比,差异有统计学意义.结论 右心室心尖部起搏使病窦综合征患者房颤发生率增加,左心房内径增大.因此,对房室传导正常的病窦综合征患者,建议最小化心室起搏,鼓励心室自身传导.     

心室起搏管理与精确心室起搏功能减少心室起搏的对照研究

目的比较心室起搏管理（management ventricular pacing,MVP）功能与精确心室起搏（refined ventricular pacing,RVP）功能减少右心室起搏的百分比的差异。方法 50例患者按照随机表1：1分成两组,每组25例,分别为MVP组和RVP组。MVP组为植入美敦力Adapt ADDR01起搏器,术后关闭MVP功能1个月;RVP功能组为植入Vitatron双腔起搏器TA1系列或CA3系列,术后关闭RVP功能1个月。1个月后开启MVP功能或RVP功能,术后1、3、6个月采用起搏器程控仪测试各项起搏参数,比较不同起搏功能下的心室起搏百分比。结果两组3个月后、6个月后心室起搏百分比中位数显著低于同组1个月后,差异均有统计学意义（MVP组：0.20vs.75.30,P〈0.01;0.10vs.75.30,P〈0.01。RVP组：6.00vs.88.40,P〈0.01;26.00vs.88.40,P〈0.01）。术后3个月、6个月MVP组的心室起搏百分比中位数低于RVP组,差异有统计学意义[0.20vs.6.00,P=0.02;0.10vs.26.00,P〈0.01]。结论 MVP功能在减少心室起搏百分比方面优于RVP功能,能够更有效的减少右心室起搏累计百分比。     

不同部位心脏起搏与心房颤动关系探讨

双腔起搏可抑制病态窦房结综合征患者心房颤动的发生,但过多的心房及心室起搏可诱发心房颤动。现就近几年有关不同部位心脏起搏与心房颤动关系的研究作一简要综述。     

Chronic sinus node disease: natural course and indications for pacing

The natural history of sinus node disease has been analysedfrom reported as well as original data. Because of the widespreaduse of pacemakers in sinus node disease the perfect study ofits true prognosis will probably never be made. Nevertheless,available data strongly indicate that the outlook for identifiedpatients with the disorder who do not have sever symptoms isfavorable. Even for the severely symptomatic group, the prognosisseems to be much better than in atrioventricular conductiondisease. Pacemaker implantations in this condition should therefore,in general, be restricted to the symptomatic patient in whomthe symptoms have been shown to coincide with bradycardia. International differences in the extent of pacing use have beenanalysed from current statistics. It is concluded that differentattitudes to pacing in sinus node disease account for a substantialpart of these differences     

Percent ventricular pacing with managed ventricular pacing mode in standard pacemaker population

Aims: Unnecessary right ventricular pacing has deleterious effectsand becomes more significant when cumulative percent ventricularpacing (Cum%VP) exceeds 40% of time. The Managed VentricularPacing (MVP) mode has been shown to significantly reduce thepercent ventricular pacing compared to the DDD/R mode. Thisstudy assessed the percent of ventricular pacing in a standardpacemaker population programmed to MVP and for which patientsit is possible to achieve a Cum%VP 40%. Methods and results: Unselected, consecutive patients were implanted with a dualchamber pacemaker with a mean follow-up period of 76 days. TheCum%VP was calculated from device diagnostics between pre-hospitaldischarge (PHD) and the 1-month post implant visit. The medianCum%VP of 107 patients (age 67.2 ± 14 years; 53% male)who were programmed to MVP was 3.9%. The median Cum%VP was 1.4%in patients with sinus node disease (SND) and 28.8% in patientswith AV block (AVB). Cum%VP 40% was observed in 72% of allpatients, in 50% of AVB patients, and in 86% of SND patients. Conclusion: The MVP mode is capable of achieving a low percent of ventricularpacing in a standard pacemaker population with SND and AVB.In addition, 72% of patients in MVP mode demonstrated Cum%VP 40%.     

Atrial rate-responsive pacing in sinus node disease

Patients with sinus node disease (SND) who are unable to achieve an adequate increase in heart rate during exercise are candidates for atrial rate-responsive pacing (AAI-R). We have implanted 40 AAI-R systems in SND patients with an average follow-up of 12.5 +/- 8 (range 3-30) months. All the patients received an activity-sensing pulse generator (Activitrax, Medtronic or Sensolog, Siemens-Pacesetter) with a single atrial lead. Only patients with an intraoperative AV nodal block cycle-length above 100 beats min-1 were included. During follow-up, one patient was observed to have transient asymptomatic 2:1 AV-block during sleep. No patient developed persistent AV-block or chronic atrial fibrillation. Twelve patients with persistent chronotropic incompetence were assigned for a randomized double-blind crossover study, comparing exercise treadmill capacity in AAI-R with conventional atrial inhibited pacing (AAI). During AAI-R pacing the maximum heart rate during exercise was 120 +/- 1 beats min-1 compared with 97 +/- 21 beats min-1 during AAI pacing (P less than 0.01). The average exercise time increased from 11.2 +/- 2 min during AAI-pacing to 13.4 +/- 3 min during AAI-R pacing (P less than 0.01). AAI pacing should be considered for patients with SND and chronotropic incompetence.     

Development of sinus node disease in patients with AV block: implications for single lead VDD pacing

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence of sinus node disease after pacemaker implantation for exclusive atrioventricular (AV) block. DESIGN: 441 patients were followed after VDD (n = 219) or DDD pacemaker (n = 222) implantation for AV block over a mean period of 37 months. Sinus node disease and atrial arrhythmias had been excluded by Holter monitoring and treadmill exercise preoperatively in 286 patients (group A). In 155 patients with complete AV block, a sinus rate above 70 beats/min was required for inclusion in the study (group B). Holter monitoring and treadmill exercise were performed two weeks, three months, and every six months after implantation. Sinus bradycardia below 40 beats/min, sinoatrial block, sinus arrest, or subnormal increase of heart rate during treadmill exercise were defined as sinus node dysfunction. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence of sinus node disease was 0.65% per year without differences between groups. Clinical indicators of sinus node dysfunction were sinus bradycardia below 40 beats/min in six patients (1.4%), intermittent sinoatrial block in two (0.5%), and chronotropic incompetence in five patients (1.1%). Only one of these patients (0.2%) was symptomatic. Cumulative incidence of atrial fibrillation was 2.0% per year, independent of the method used for the assessment of sinus node function and of the implanted device. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing pacemaker implantation for isolated AV block, sinus node syndrome rarely occurs during follow up. Thus single lead VDD pacing can safely be performed in these patients.     

右室心尖部起搏与右室流出道起搏对Ⅲ度房室传导阻滞患者疗效的对比研究

目的:比较右室心尖部起搏与右室流出道起搏对Ⅲ度房室传导阻滞患者心室间运动同步性及左室内运动同步性,以及对患者心功能的影响。方法:选取因Ⅲ度及高度房室传导阻滞患者置入双腔起搏器患者共38例。其中心室电极置入右室流出道者20例(RVOT组),置入右室心尖部18例(RVA组),超声心动图术前测量左室舒张末内径(LVEDD),左室收缩末内径(LVESD)、左室射血分数(LVEF)、E/A值、心室间激动延迟时间(IVMD)、室间隔与左心室后壁间收缩延迟时间(SPWMD)。术后1个月、12个月随访。结果:术后1个月,与RVOT组比较,RVA组IVMD、SPWMD明显延长[IVMD(39.83±6.01)∶(31.95±7.86)ms,P=0.02],[SP-WMD(97.83±20.81)∶(84.6±10.89)ms,P=0.023]。术后12个月,与ROVT组比较,RVA组LVEDD明显增大[(49.11±2.39)∶(47.4±1.96)mm,P=0.02],LVESD明显增大[(34.28±3.41)∶(32.5±1.5)mm,P=0.04];LVEF明显降低[(59.56±3.38)∶(62.8±2.14)%,...     

右心室流出道间隔部起搏对完全性房室传导阻滞患者心功能的影响

目的：比较右心室流出道间隔部（RVS）起搏与右心室心尖部（RVA）起搏对左右心室间收缩同步性、左室重构及心功能的影响。方法：①入选Ⅲ度房室传导阻滞患者61（男39,女22）例,随机分入RVS部起搏组（RVS组,n=33）和RVA部起搏组（RVA组,n=28）。②比较两组患者植入术中及术后12月心室电极导线参数（起搏阈值、R波感知及阻抗）的差异。③观察两组患者术前及术后12月QRS波时限;术后应用组织多普勒同步图（TSI）分别测定两组左、右心室侧壁基底部收缩达峰时间差（△Ts）。评价心室间不同步的程度。④行多普勒超声心动图（UCG）检查,观察两组术前及术后12月左室舒张末期内径（LVEDD）及左室射血分数（LVEF）的变化,比较不同起搏部位对心功能的影响。结果：①两组患者测试的起搏阈值、R波感知及导线阻抗无统计学差异。②两组患者术后QRS波时限均较术前延长（均P〈0．01）,RVA组较RVS组延长更为明显（P〈0．01）。RVS组与RVA组ATs分别为（27±14）ms和（90±22）ms,有统计学差异（P〈0．01）。③术后12／了＇月两组LVEDD均较术前增加,RVA明显大于RVS组[（54±5）mm阮（51±5）mm,P〈0．05]。RVA组术后12月LVEDD较术前明显增加[（54±5）mmvs．（50±4）mm,P〈0．05],术后12月两组LVEF均较术前降低[RVS组：（0．58-4-0．14）傩．（0．63±0．09）,P〈0．01;RVA组：（0．51±0．12）伽．（0．64±0．13）,P〈0．01],组间比差异不显著。结论：RVS起搏对心室问同步性、左室重构的影响要优于RVA起搏。     

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing compared to right ventricular apical pacing in patients with atrioventricular block

BackgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can produce near normalization of QRS duration. This has recently emerged as alternative technique to right ventricular pacing and His bundle pacing.HypothesisThe purpose of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of LBBP compared to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP).MethodsA total of 70 AVB patients with indications for ventricular pacing were retrospectively studied. LBBP was attempted in 33 patients, classified as LBBP group. The other patients were classified as RVAP group. Pacing parameters, electrocardiogram and echocardiogram characteristics, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and atrial fibrillation (AF) were evaluated perioperatively and at follow‐ups. Patients were followed in the device clinic for a minimum of 12 months and up to 24 months at a 3–6 monthly interval.ResultsLBBP was successful in 29 of 33(87.9%) patients while all 37 of the remaining patients successfully underwent RVAP. Paced QRS duration was significantly narrower in the LBBP group compare to RVAP(110.75 ± 6.77 ms vs. 154.29 ± 6.96 ms, p = .000) at implantation, and the difference persisted during follow‐ups. Pacing thresholds (at implantation: 0.68 ± 0.22 V in the LBBP group and 0.73 ± 0.23 V in the RVAP group, p = .620) remained low and stable during follow‐ups. The cardiac function in the LBBP group remained stable during follow‐ups (LVEF%:55.08 ± 4.32 pre‐operation and 54.17 ± 4.34 at the end of follow‐up, p = .609), and better than RVAP group (LVEF%: 54.17 ± 4.34 vs. 50.14 ± 2.14, p = .005). Less HFH was observed in the LBBP group (2/29,6.89%) compared to RVAP group (10/37,27.03%).ConclusionsThe present investigation demonstrates the safety and feasibility of LBBP that produces narrower paced QRS duration than RVAP. LBBP is associated with reduction in the occurrence of pacing‐induced left ventricular dysfunction and HFH compared to RVAP in patients requiring permanent pacemakers.     

Pacing for sinus node disease: A therapeutic rationale

Symptomatic sinus node disease is a common indication for permanent pacemaker implantation. Single-chamber ventricular (VVI) pacing, single-chamber atrial (AAI) stimulation, and dual-chamber (DDD or DDI) systems are used to a varying extent at different implanting centers. Hemodynamic and clinical studies relevant to the choice of pacing mode in these patients are reviewed. The data currently available strongly support the use of pacing systems providing atrial stimulation. The choice between single-chamber atrial or dual-chamber pacing can be based on the relative importance assigned to a number of factors: Hemodynamic aspects, the risk of ventricular lead problems, cost, and complexity aspects favor AAI pacing, whereas patients with a substantial risk of developing atrioventricular block should receive a DDD or DDI unit.