食管心房调搏对室上性心动过速诊断的准确性评价

评价食管电生理检查对室上性心动过速诊断的准确性。方法 比较102例室上性心动过速经心内和食管电生理检查的结果。结果 102例室上性心动过速101例分型诊断一致：房室折返性心运过速（AVRT）58例,房室结折返性心运过速（AVNRT）37例,房内折返性心动过速（IART）5例,窦房结折返性心动过速（SART）1例,房性自律性心动过速（AAT）1例。6例房性心动过速（IART5例,AAT1例）起源于右房还是左房和57例房室折返性心动过速的旁路位于右侧还是左侧,两种检查结果完全一致。结论 食管心房调搏对室上性心动过速的分型诊断和初步定位诊断具有很高的准确性,这对选择射频消融术病例和简化消融术程序具有重要意义。     

食管心房调搏治疗快速室上性心动过速

本文对38例阵发性室上性心动过速(PSVT)作食管心房调搏超速抑制治疗。结果 该法可作为PSVT的首选手段,方法简单、操作方便、无并发症、极为有效,值得推广,基层尤其适用。现对38例PSVT者经食管心房调搏超速抑制治疗,报道如下。 1 资料与方法 1.1 一般情况:男18例,女20例。年龄15～56(平均42.6)岁,均经兴奋和刺激迷走神经无效后,即用食管心房     

食管心房调搏诊断窦房折返性心动过速1例

患者女,28岁,反复心动过速史3年,每年发作2—3次,发作时除心悸外,无其他特殊症状。胸部X线、超声心动图均未见器质性心脏病证据。食管心房调搏检查:调搏前心电图为窦性心律。电刺激可反复诱发心动过速,心动过速时QRS形态正常,心室率160次/min。其中分级起搏S_1-S_1210—220次/min可诱发,程序刺激S_1—S_2也可诱发,诱发窗口200—340ms。反复短阵猝发脉冲220—250次/min可终止心动过速。电刺激反复诱发和终止室上性心动过速可排除自律性房性心动过速。附图A为S_1S_2程序刺激,图中3个导联为同步记录,当S_1-S_2为340ms时诱发室上速。S_2-R为180ms,无明显延长,P_1直立,可排除房室结折返及房室折返性心动过速(AVNRT),而支持窦房折返及房内折返性心动过速。附图B为短阵猝发脉冲220次/min终止室上性心动过速,恢复窦性心律后P-R间期虽明显短于心动过速时P＇-R间期,但P波形态与心动过速时P＇波的形态无明显差     

食管心房调搏诊断束支间折返性心动过速1例

束支间折返现象多在电生理研究中发现,自发产生者,特别是形成折返性心动过速者较为少见,其诊断也有赖于电生理检查。我们采用食管心房调搏诊断1例,现报道如下。患者男性,54岁,发作性胸闷及阵发性心悸2年,以“冠心病、阵发性室上速”于1988年4月来我院就诊。体检无异常发现,心脏超声及X线胸片正常。心电图在窦性心律时T_(v_(5、6))低平,心动过速时,QRS波呈完全     

经食管心房调搏对阵发性室上性心动过速的诊断价值

目的 探讨经食管心房调搏对阵发性室上性心动过速的分型及定位诊断价值。方法 回顾性分析食管心房调搏对193例阵发性室上性心动过速分型及定位诊断结果，并与心内电生理检查诊断结果比较。结果 经食管心房调搏对慢-快型AVNRT及顺向性AVRT的诊断敏感性、特异性、准确性均较高，对少见型AVNRT的诊断敏感性低(25％)。结论 阵发性室上性心动过速发作时食管与体表心电图P^-波起始与极性是诊断阵发性室上性心动过速的关键。经食管心房调搏对心动过速旁道定位误诊原因主要是心动过速时体表心电图P^-波往往与T波融合，导致V1、I导联P^-波极性及V1导联P^-波起始部形态改变。     

食管心房调搏对阵发性室上性心动过速发病机制研究

使用无创伤性食管心房调搏（TEAP）心电生理检查法，对58例原因不明的阵发性室上性心动过速（PSVT）在非发作期进行程控或非程控心脏刺激，旨在探讨PSVT的发病机制，电生理特征以及TEAP对其临床研究的价值。结果：诱发示PSVT的共47例（折返机制），占81．0％，不能诱发11例（非折返机制），占19．0％。说明折返机制系PSVT的主要发病机制。又根据程控刺激中所表现的不同心电生理特征，47例折返性PSVT又可分为不同机制的折返。其中房室结内折返性23例，房室折返性17例，心房内或窦房折返性7例，说明前两种折返系折返性PSVT的主要折返机制，与国内外报道相似。     

经食管心房调搏终止室上性心动过速的影响因素

目的 探讨经食管心房调搏(transesophageal atrial pacing,TEAP)终止室上性心动过速(supraventricular tachycardia,SVT)的影响因素.方法 选择行TEAP时发生SVT并通过超速抑制终止的患者78例,按终止脉冲数分为脉冲数≤5个组(41例)和脉冲数>5个组(37例).比较两组患者的年龄、性别、输出电压、插管深度、心动过速类型及频率、终止频率、频率差值、SR延长间期、文氏阻滞点、2:1阻滞点对终止SVT的影响.结果 脉冲数>5个组的心动过速频率、终止频率明显高于脉冲数≤5个组(P<0.05).二元Logistic回归分析证实,心动过速频率是TEAP终止SVT的影响因素(OR=1.03,P=0.02).心动过速频率越快,超速刺激需要的脉冲数越多.结论 心动过速频率对TEAP终止SVT的脉冲发放次数有重要影响,临床操作时应予以密切关注.     

食管调搏插管方法改进30例

为寻找成功率高 ,不适反应轻的插管途径 ,选择 6 0例行食管调高搏者随机分为经鼻入路插管组和经口入路插管组 ,每组 30例。结果 :经口插管时导管不能顺利达到预定位置、疼痛、粘膜出血发生率明显低于经鼻插管组(70 %vs 93.3% ,P <0 0 5 )。结论 :经口入路插管法成功率高 ,不适反应轻 ,值得临床医师推广使用。     

食管心房调搏指标诊断室上性心动过速价值的评定

以射频消融结果为依据，评定Ｓ＿２Ｒ跃增值和ＲＰ＿Ｅ时距对４８例慢－快型房室结折返性心动过速（Ｓ－Ｆ型ＡＶＮＲＴ）和１４１例顺向型房室折返性心动过速（Ｏ－ＡＶＲＴ）患者的诊断及鉴别诊断价值，并讨论两类心动过速食管调搏的定量判别标准。结果表明：（１）Ｓ＿２Ｒ跃增以≥６０ｍｓ诊断ＡＶＮＲＴ为宜，但有一定局限性，其敏感性、特异性、诊断价值分别为９１．６％、８５．８％、７２．８％。（２）ＲＰ＿Ｅ时距≤７０ｍｓ和＞７０ｍｓ分别对Ｓ－Ｆ型ＡＶＮＲＴ、Ｏ－ＡＶＲＴ的诊断及鉴别诊断价值较高。敏感性、特异性、诊断价值分别为９３．８％、１００％、１００％与１００％、９３．８％、９７．９％．（３）少数（１７％）右侧壁旁道逆传性心动过速ＲＰ＿Ｅ／Ｐ＿ＥＲ可＞１．０。（４）Ｓ－Ｆ型ＡＶＮＲＴ与Ｏ－ＡＶＲＴ的定量判别Ｓ＿２Ｒ跃增、ＲＰ＿Ｅ标准宜分别取≥６０ｍｓ、≤７０ｍｓ与＜６０ｍｓ、＞７０ｍｓ。     

Induction of Left Ventricular Fascicular Tachycardia with Transesophageal Pacing in a Toddler

J.V. is a 3½-year-old patient with left ventricular fascicular ventricular tachycardia that had been well controlled on verapamil for 3 years. He was taken for a transesophageal electrophysiology study prior to discontinuing medication in an attempt to induce his tachycardia. We report the use of transesophageal electrophysiology study as a noninvasive method to induce left ventricular fascicular ventricular tachycardia in a toddler.     

心房起搏时PR与RR间期比值对阵发性室上性心动过速鉴别诊断的意义

为探讨快速心房起搏最短１∶１房室传导时最大ＰＲ间期（ＰＲｍａｘ）与ＲＲ间期比值（ＰＲｍａｘ／ＲＲ）在鉴别阵发性室上性心动过速中的意义，分析比较了２０例房室结折返性心动过速（ＡＶＮＲＴ，有房室结前传跳跃现象者１２例、无跳跃现象者８例）和２０例房室折返性心动过速（ＡＶＲＴ）患者消融前、后快速心房起搏时最短１∶１房室传导的ＰＲｍａｘ／ＲＲ。ＡＶＮＲＴ组消融前、后心房快速起搏时最短１∶１房室传导的ＰＲｍａｘ／ＲＲ为１．１２±０．１２和０．４２±０．０７，两者比较差异有高度显著性，Ｐ＜０．０１；ＡＶＲＴ组为０．５２±０．１６和０．５１±０．１８，两者比较差异无显著性，Ｐ＞０．０５。消融前，ＡＶＮＲＴ组ＰＲｍａｘ／ＲＲ与ＡＶＲＴ组相比有显著性差异（１．１２±０．１２ｖｓ０．５２±０．１６，Ｐ＜０．０１）。ＰＲｍａｘ／ＲＲ＞１诊断ＡＶＮＲＴ的敏感性为９０％、特异性９１％。提示ＰＲｍａｘ／ＲＲ＞１在消融前可用来鉴别ＡＶＮＲＴ与ＡＶＲＴ；对无房室结前传跳跃的ＡＶＮＲＴ，消融后ＰＲｍａｘ／ＲＲ＜１可作为慢径消融成功的指标     

几种食管心房调搏方式的比较研究

降低有效起搏阈值、减轻刺激疼痛是顺利完成经食管心房调搏（ＴＥＰ）检查的必要条件。将１５０例患者等分成三组，分别采用常规法（常规电极、常规极间距）、互换法（两个电极可交替作为刺激电极）、宽距法（常规电极、宽极间距）和粗极法（电极直径６ｍｍ）行ＴＥＰ检查，观察指标有起搏成功率、起搏阈值、插入成功率等。当刺激电压＜２５Ｖ时，互换法与粗极法起搏成功率（分别为９０％与８４％）均高于常规法（６４％）和宽距法（７０％）；粗极法１００％成功时的起搏阈值（１７．０±５．０Ｖ）低于其他三种方法（２５．２±１０．０，１９．０±８．０和２１．０±１３．０Ｖ，Ｐ均＜０．０５），其电极插入成功率最低（８４％）、鼻衄率最高（２６％）。认为互换法具有起搏阈值较低，在一定电压范围内成功率高、并发症低等优点。     

Comparison of Atrial-His Intervals During Tachycardia and Atrial Pacing in Patients with Long RP Tachycardia

Long RP Tachycardia. Introduction : The purpose of this study is to describe a simple and reliable diagnostic maneuver that allows for the rapid differentiation of atypical AV nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) from other causes of long KP tachycardia. Long RP tachycardias may he caused by atypical AVNRT, orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia (ORT) involving a slowly conducting retrograde accessory pathway, or atrial tachycardia. The differentiation of atypical AVNRT from ORT or atrial tachycardia may be difficult, especially when the differential diagnosis includes a posteroseptal accessory pathway or an atrial tachycardia arising in the posteroseptal right atrium.
Methods and Results : Twelve patients with atypical AVNRT, 21 with ORT, and 12 with an atrial tachycardia diagnosed using conventional criteria were enrolled In this study. The atrial-His (AH) interval was measured at the His-bundle position during the tachycardia and during atrial pacing from the high right atrium at the tachycardia cycle length in the setting of sinus rhythm. In patients with atypical AVNRT, the mean AH interval was 69 msec ± 50 msec (± SD) longer during high right atrial pacing than during the tachycardia (P < 0.001). In 10 of 12 patients with atypical AVNRT, the AH interval during atrial pacing was more than 40 msec longer than the AH interval measured during the tachycardia. In contrast, in patients with ORT or atrial tachycardia, the differences in AH interval between atrial pacing and tachycardia were never more than 20 and 10 msec, respectively.
Conclusion : The difference in the AH interval between atrial pacing and the tachycardia allows a simple and rapid means of differentiating atypical AVNRT from other types of long RP tachycardias.     

食管心房调搏在室上速诊断中价值新探讨

目的：评价食管心房调搏对室上性心动过速诊断的准确性。方法：将111例室上速患者心内和食管电生理检查结果进行比较。结果：111例室上性心动过速患者中，经食管心房调搏检查，诊断为房室结内折返性心动过速（AVNRT）41例，准确率91％；诊断为房室折返性心动过速（AVRT）53例，准确率92％；诊断为房性心动过速（AT包括房内折返陛心动过速和房性自律性心动过速）6例，准确率100％；诊断为窦房结折返性心动过速（SART）1例，准确率100％。根据PE-PV1时距判定房速激动起源点以及左右房室旁道位置与心内电生理检查结果基本一致。结论：食管心房调搏在室上速诊断中具有很高的价值。     

食管心房调搏对诊断房室传导阻滞的应用

目的 评价食管心房调搏对于房室传导阻滞的诊断价值.方法 比较145例心动过缓患者采用食管心房调搏与常规/动态心电图对于房室传导阻滞的检出率并进行随访.结果 (1)食管心房调搏对房室传导阻滞的检出率(66.9%)高于常规/动态心电图(51.7%),差异有显著性意义(P＜0.05).(2)阿托品试验前后食管心房调搏对房室传导阻滞的检出率(77.9%,66.9%)差异有显著性意义(P＜0.05).(3)经6～24月随访食管心房调搏检出的22例早期病理性房室传导阻滞患者19例发展为典型房室传导阻滞.结论 食管心房调搏对房室传导阻滞等缓慢性心律失常的诊断和鉴别诊断同样具有临床实用价值.     

Transesophageal Echocardiographic Diagnosis of Intussusception of the Left Atrial Appendage

Intraoperative postbypass transesophageal echocardiography demonstrated a large pedunculated left atrial mass secondary to invagination of the left atrial appendage into the left atrial cavity. The base of the mass was between the entrance of the left upper pulmonary vein and the posterior attachment of the mitral valve at the atrioventricular groove, and the body of it protruded into the left atrium and mitral funnel. Retraction of the appendage to its normal position resulted in disappearance of the mass. This diagnosis should be considered when a pedunculated mass with these morphological features is encountered in this setting. (ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY, Volume 10, November 1993)     

Atrial Tachycardia Confined Within the Left Atrial Appendage

AT Confined Within the LAA. Left atrial tachycardias are often seen following catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). We report here an unusual case where AF was converted to sinus rhythm following catheter ablation, but ongoing atrial tachycardia confined within the left atrial appendage (LAA) was observed. Although the LAA tachycardia was dissociated from the atrium in sinus rhythm, bidirectional conduction between the left atrium and the LAA was, however, demonstrated after tachycardia termination. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 21, pp. 933‐935, August 2010)