右室间隔部起搏与右室心尖部起搏对患者心功能的影响

目的探讨右室间隔部起搏(right ventricular septum pacing,RVS)与右室心尖部起搏(right ventricular apex pa-cing,RVA)对心功能的影响。方法 45例Ⅲ度或高度房室传导阻滞或病态窦房结综合征行永久起搏器置入患者分为RVA组(24例)与RVS组(21例)。随访术后不同时期超声心动图,监测左室射血分数(LVEF)、左室舒张末期内径(LVDd)、左室Tei指数变化。结果 RVA组术后LVEF与术前比较呈逐渐降低趋势,LVDd呈持续增大趋势,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。RVS组术后LVEF、LVDd与术前比较均无明显变化,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组Tei指数在术后均持续增大,术后1天、12月与24月组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论右室间隔部起搏较右室心尖部起搏对左心功能影响更小。     

右心室间隔部起搏对心动过缓患者的疗效观察

目的:观察并比较VVI单腔起搏器植入右心室间隔部和右心室心尖部对心动过缓患者术后心脏电机械同步性及血清脑钠肽的影响。方法:心房颤动伴房室传导阻滞及心动过缓需植入VVI单腔起搏器患者23例,右心室间隔部起搏患者11例为治疗组,同时行右心室心尖部起搏患者12例为对照组,观察并比较2组手术时间、起搏参数、QRS波宽度,和起搏器植入术前、后血清脑钠肽水平的变化。结果:2组手术时间、QRS波宽度比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);起搏阈值、感知阈值、电极阻抗比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);随访6个月时对照组较治疗组血清脑钠肽水平增加(P<0.05)。结论:与传统植入部位右心室心尖部起搏相比,右心室间隔部起搏更接近生理情况,能更好地维持患者的心脏电机械同步性,对血流动力学影响更小。     

右心室流出道间隔部起搏的临床观察

目的 比较右心窜流出道间隔部(RVOTS)起搏与右心室心尖部(RVA)起搏对患者心功能的影响.方法 对29例行心脏起搏器植入治疗的Ⅲ°房室传导阻滞患者随机分为RVOTSP组(15例)和RVAP组(14例),观察两组患者手术一般情况,以及术后12个月的心电图、心脏彩超EF值和左心室舒张末期内径等指标变化.结果 两组患者手术时间、心窒电极导线过三尖瓣后的X线曝光时间、术中各项参数的测试结果等比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后随访12个月,RVOTSP组QRS波时限、左心窒蕈鼍、NYHA心功能分级和左心室射血分数均优于RVAP组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后12个月血浆脑钠肽水平与术前比较,RVOTSP组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),RVAP组升高(P<0.05).结论 RVOTS起搏较RVA起搏更符合"生理性"起搏的特点,对心功能及心电的不良影响也小于RVA起搏,且安全可靠,能改善患者远期心功能,提高其生存质量.     

DDD模式下右心室心尖部起搏与右心室流出道间隔部起搏的临床对比研究

目的 DDD模式下比较右心室心尖部（RVA）起搏与右心室流出道（RVOT）间隔部起搏对患者左心室重构及心功能的影响。方法回顾性分析2009年1月至2012年12月期间我院行永久起搏器（双腔DDD）植入治疗的患者219例,根据心室电极植入部位的不同分为A组（RVA起搏）、B组（RVOT起搏）,每组再根据患者术前左心室射血分数（LVEF）的不同分为两个亚组。调取患者12个月的随访资料,分析两组患者术后LVEF、左心房内径（LAD）、左心室舒张末期内径（LVEDD）及起搏治疗前后各项起搏参数、起搏QRS波群时限和术后并发症等。结果两组在手术成功率、术后并发症等方面的比较无显著差异。术后12个月,A组起搏阈值、电极阻抗较术中均有回落,LVEF较术前降低,LAD、LVEDD较术前增大,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;B组电极阻抗较术中有回落（P〈0.05）,起搏阈值、R波振幅与术中比较差异无统计学意义,LVEF、LAD、LVEDD与术前相比差异无统计学意义。B组的起搏QRS波群时限较A组显著缩短[（145.09±4.96）ms vs.（157.40±12.44）ms,P〈0.01]。对亚组进行分析发现：术前LVEF≥50%的患者,A、B两组仅LVEDD较术前有增大（P〈0.05）,LVEF和LAD与术前相比差异无统计学意义。术前LVEF〈50%的患者,A组患者的LVEF较术前降低,LAD、LVEDD较术前增大,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）,而B组患者的LVEF、LAD、LVEDD与术前比较差异无统计学意义。结论运用主动固定电极行RVOT起搏在临床应用中是安全、可行的。经过12个月的起搏治疗,对术前心功能不全的患者,RVOT起搏能提供接近生理性的心室激动顺序,维持心室肌电-机械活动同步化,对患者心功能的损害小;对术前心功能正常的患者,虽然RVOT起搏提供了更为协调的心室收缩,但在保护患者左心室收缩功能及阻止左心室重构方面并未显示出优于RVA起搏的证据。     

右心室流出道高位间隔部起搏的应用及护理

目的 探讨主动固定电极行右心室流出道高位间隔部起搏的可行性及护理对策.方法 40例需起搏器植入的患者,采用VVI起搏模式,将其随机分为右心室流出道高位间隔部起搏组（RVOTHS组）和右心室心尖部起搏组（RVA组）各20例,观察两组在术中及术后的各项参数以及护理对策.结果 两组患者均顺利完成手术,两组各1例术后发生电极脱位.全部手术无严重并发症出现.RVOTHS组手术曝光时间明显延长,两组比较差异有统计学意义（t=4.036,P＜0.01）.术中两组患者心室的起搏阈值、感知阈值和电极阻抗比较差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）,RVOTHS组起搏心电图QRS波宽度较RVA组变窄,但差异无统计学意义（t=1.613,P＞0.05）.结论 右心室流出道高位间隔部起搏是安全和可行的,术后护理重视心电监测及个性化护理,可使并发症的发生率大大降低.     

右心室不同起搏部位对起搏依赖性患者心功能的影响

目的:观察右心室不同起搏部位对起搏依赖性患者心功能的影响。方法:将56例需行心脏起搏器治疗的缓慢性心律失常患者随机分为RVS组与RVA组。RVS组右心室起搏部位为右室间隔部,RVA组右心室起搏部位为右室心尖部。观察及对比两组治疗前及治疗后6、12个月的QRS波时限,左心室射血分数、心输出量、心脏指数、左室舒张末期内径、6 min步行试验的变化。结果:RVA组治疗后6、12个月的QRS波时限较同期的RVS组长;治疗后6个月及12个月RVS组的LVEF、CO、CI、6MWT较RVA组高,LVEDd较RVA组低,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05或P0.01)。结论:右心室起搏部位为右室间隔部起搏对心功能的影响较右心室起搏部位为右室心尖部小。     

1例主动固定电极右室间隔部起搏器置入术患者的护理

右室间隔部起搏器置入术是应用主动固定电极导线行心脏特殊部位起搏。安装双腔起搏器的患者行右室流出道间隔部起搏,将心室起搏螺旋电极先后定位于右室心尖部及右室流出道间隔部并测试起搏参数,而在间隔部起搏可以获得接近正常生理的心室激动顺序,有效地避免了起搏对血流动力学和心功能的不良影响,其较心尖部起搏能明显改善心脏动力学指标,室间隔部起搏有利于左右心室协调运动但需借助主动固定电极导线,广西主动固定电极起搏器置入术的病例较少,我科于2007年8月重置入1例主动固定电极右室间隔部起搏器术,经系统的治疗和护理,患者已出院,现报…     

希氏束起搏对永久性起搏器植入患者心脏结构及心功能分级的影响

目的：探讨希氏束起搏对永久性起搏器植入患者心脏结构及心功能分级的影响。方法：回顾性分析2017年1月~2019年1月心血管内科收治的60例永久性起搏器植入患者临床资料，依据起搏治疗方式不同分为对照组28例和观察组32例。对照组予以右室心尖部起搏，观察组予以希氏束起搏。对比两组治疗后6个月、12个月起搏器程控以及心功能分级情况。结果：观察组治疗后6个月、12个月心室电极感知、阻抗较对照组低，阈值较对照组高，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；相较对照组，观察组心功能恢复情况较好，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论：永久性起搏器植入患者采用希氏束起搏效果优于右室心尖部起搏，可有效改善患者心功能。     

右心室间隔部起搏与心尖部起搏对起搏依赖患者心功能的长期影响

目的:通过超声心动图评价右心室间隔部起搏与右心室心尖部起搏对起搏依赖患者心功能的长期影响.方法:56例行DDD永久起搏器植入的Ⅲ度房室传导阻滞患者,根据右心室电极植入部位随机分为右心室间隔部起搏组29例(RVS组),心尖部起搏组27例(RVA组).平均随访(22.64±4.29)个月,通过超声心动图比较术前和随访时的左室舒张末内径(LVEDD)、射血分数(LVEF)、短轴缩短率(FS)、每搏输出量(SV)的变化.结果:术前基线RVS组与RVA组年龄、LVEDD、EF、FS、SV无差别;RVS组术前与随访时比较LVEDD、EF、FS、SV无差别,RVA组术前与随访时LVEDD、EF、FS、无差别.SV降低(P<0.05);随访时两组间各指标之间无明显差异(P均>0.05).结论:对于完全依赖右心室起搏的患者,在左室收缩功能方面,右心室间隔部起搏并不优于传统的心尖部起搏.     

1例主动固定电极右室间隔部起搏器置入术患者的护理

右室间隔部起搏器置人术是应用主动固定电极导线行心脏特殊部位起搏。安装双腔起搏器的患者行右室流出道间隔部起搏，将心室起搏螺旋电极先后定位于右室心尖部及右室流出道间隔部并测试起搏参数，而在间隔部起搏可以获得接近正常生理的心室激动顺序，有效地避免了起搏对血流动力学和心功能的不良影响，     

Effects of proximal ventricular septal pacing on hemodynamics and ventricular activation

Recently the use of alternate site pacing to improve cardiac function in patients with bradyarrhythmias has increased. In the present study, hemodynamics of right ventricular septal pacing were studied in seven dogs. A bipolar screw-in lead and endocardial lead were placed in the proximal right ventricular septum and right ventricular apex, respectively. The right ventricle was paced from each site. A conductance catheter and Millar catheter were inserted into the left ventricle to determine the left ventricular pressure and the pressure-volume loop. Cardiac output was measured using the thermodilution method. In five of the seven dogs, ventricular activation was documented by isochronal epicardial activation mapping during each pacing mode. Mean arterial pressure and cardiac output during septal pacing were significantly higher than during apical pacing (110 +/- 17 mmHg vs 100 +/- 18 mmHg; 1.00 +/- 0.39 L/min vs 0.89 +/- 0.33 L/min). The positive dp/dt during septal pacing was significantly higher than during apical pacing (2137 +/- 535 mmHg/s vs 1911 +/- 404 mmHg/s). End-systolic elastance during septal pacing was significantly higher compared to apical pacing (13.1 +/- 0.3 mmHg/mL vs 8.9 +/- 4.0 mmHg/mL). The ventricular activation time during septal pacing was significantly shorter than during apical pacing. The epicardial maps generated during septal pacing were similar to those from atrial pacing. We conclude that hemodynamics and interventricular conduction are less disturbed by proximal right ventricular septal pacing than apical pacing in dogs with normal hearts.     

右心室流入道间隔部和右心室心尖部起搏神经内分泌激素和心功能的变化

目的探讨右心室流入道间隔部(RVIS)和右心室心尖部(RVA)起搏治疗缓慢性心律失常神经内分泌激素和心功能的变化。方法房室全能型起搏器(DDD)治疗患者106例,男86例,女20例,年龄45～86岁,平均(76.4±9.5)岁,随机分为右心室流入道间隔部起搏组(RVIS起搏组)56例,右心室心尖部起搏组(RVA起搏组)50例。两组心房电极均植入右心耳梳状肌内,RVIS起搏组心室电极植入右心室流入道间隔部、RVA起搏组心室电极植入右心室心尖部。分别观察两组在起搏器植入时、起搏3个月和6个月不同时期,血浆肾素活性(PRA)、血管紧张素Ⅱ(AngⅡ)、醛固酮(ALD)、心钠肽(BNP)和去甲肾上腺素(NE)等神经内分泌激素的含量;应用彩色多普勒超声心动图测定:心排血量(CO)、每搏输出量(SV)、射血分数(EF)和左心室舒张末内径(LVDd)。结果 RVA起搏组治疗后,血浆PRA、AngⅡ、ALD、BNP和NE含量增加,而RVIS起搏组则明显下降;RVIS起搏组心功能改善明显:CO、SV和EF值明显增加,LVDd值缩小,RVA起搏组SV、EF值下降,LVDd增加,CO虽然有所增加,但不如RVIS起搏组明显,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 RVIS起搏优于RVA起搏,可明显改善心功能,纠正神经内分泌激素失调,值得临床推广。     

永久右心室流出道起搏临床评价

目的评价主动固定电极在右心室流出道间隔部起搏应用中的临床疗效和稳定性。方法55例有高度房室传导阻滞的缓慢心律失常患者随机分为2组,27例采用主动固定电极行右心室流出道间隔部起搏（主动固定电极组）,28例采用被动固定电极行右心室心尖部起搏（被动固定电极组）,比较2组电极植入时间和心电图QRS波宽度,电极植入时及随访起搏阚值、感知、阻抗,电极脱位及相关并发症。结果主动固定电极组的植入时间和X线曝光时间均长于被动固定电极组,（25．82±1．84）min vs （20．07±2．45）min、（15．75±1．99）min vs （8．50±1．89）min（均P〈0．05）。主动固定电极组起搏的ORS波时限较被动固定电极组短,（130．104±4．00）ms vs （152．30±10．80）ms（P〈0．05）。主动电极植入组即刻闽值比被动电极组高,（0．71±0．27）V vs （0．51±0．17）V（P〈0．01）,术后随访3个月,2组的起搏阚值、感知差异均无统计学意义,术后3个月时主动电极组阻抗要低于被动电极组,（431．00±76．90）Ω vs （588．39±160．79）Ω（P〈0．01）,未见电极脱位等并发症。结论主动固定电极在右心室流出道间隔部的起搏应用可行而稳定。     

右心室心尖不同部位起搏时左心室收缩时序的超声研究

目的探讨右心室心尖不同部位起搏时左心节段性室壁的收缩特征及时序。方法利用实时三维超声心动图技术确定右心室心尖起搏电极顶端在右心室心尖部的准确空间附着位点。运用应变显像技术，测定左心室壁各节段收缩期应力的达峰时间，即自心电图Q波起点至收缩期峰值应变时限（interval between Q wave of surface ECG and peak strain，QPSI），反映左心室各室壁的收缩时序；并计算QPSI的离散度，即最大QPSI减去最小QPSI的时限差，代表左心室内收缩延迟时间。观察正常对照组、右心室心尖不同部位起搏组左心室壁的节段性运动，评价各组左心室壁的收缩（或应变）时序及收缩协调性。结果右心室心尖起搏组的左心室壁收缩时序较正常对照组发生改变。右心室心尖侧壁起搏与右心室心尖间隔起搏组的左心室壁收缩时序不同，左室间隔心尖段、后壁基底段差异存在统计学意义（P〈0．05）。右心室心尖起搏时左室壁整体的收缩发生延迟，并且右心室心尖侧壁起搏组左室壁的收缩延迟时间明显大于右心室心尖间隔起搏组（P〈0．05）。结论右心室心尖不同部位起搏可以导致左心室不同的收缩模式改变，提示右心室心尖不同部位起搏所引起的电激动顺序及对心脏血流动力学的影响也存在差异。     

右室不同部位起搏对左室重构及脑钠肽的影响

目的 比较右室流出道间隔部(RVS)与右室心尖部(RVA)起搏对左室重构及脑钠肽的影响.方法 60例具备起搏器植入指征的患者,随机分为RVA组与RVS组,分别于治疗前及治疗后6、12、24个月采血应用夹心酶联免疫吸附法检测血浆脑钠肽(BNP)水平,超声测量左心室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)、左室舒张末期容积(INEDV)和左室射血分数(LVEF),观察2组患者起搏前后心室重构指标及BNP的变化.结果 RVA组起搏术后各个时间点BNP水平显著升高[术后6、12、24个月分别为(108.2±29.8)、(190.3±46.7)、(308.2±56.5)ng/L],与术前[(60.2±15.7)ng/L]比较差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);RVS组起搏术后仅24个月时BNP水平较术前升高[(75.2±15.8)ng/L与(63.9±15.1)ng/L],差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).RVA起搏组随着起搏时间的延长,与术前相比,12个月时LVEDD、LVEDV增加,LVEF下降,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05).而RVS组LVEDD无明显增大,LVEDV轻度增加,LVEF呈下降趋势,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05).结论 RVS起搏较RVA起搏能改善心肌重构,改善左室功能.减轻神经内分泌激活.     

The deleterious consequences of right ventricular apical pacing: time to seek alternate site pacing

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this article is to critically review the data accumulated to date from studies evaluating the hemodynamic and clinical effects of right ventricular apical pacing during conventional permanent cardiac pacing. The data from studies comparing the effects of right ventricular apical pacing and alternate site ventricular pacing are also reviewed. METHODS: We conducted a MEDLINE and journal search of English-language reports published in the last decade and searched relevant papers. RESULTS: Although intraventricular conduction delay in the form of left bundle branch block (LBBB) has traditionally been viewed as an electrophysiologic abnormality, it has now become abundantly clear that it has profound hemodynamic effects due to ventricular dyssynchrony, especially in patients with heart failure. These deleterious effects can be significantly ameliorated by cardiac resynchronization therapy effected by biventricular or left ventricular pacing. However, not only is spontaneous LBBB harmful, but the iatrogenic variety produced by right ventricular apical pacing in patients with permanent pacemakers may be equally deleterious. In this review new evidence from recent studies is presented, which strongly suggests a harmful effect of our long-standing practice of producing an iatrogenic LBBB by conventional right ventricular apical pacing in patients receiving permanent pacemakers. This emerging strong new evidence about the adverse hemodynamic and clinical effects of right ventricular apical pacing would dictate a reassessment of our traditional approach to permanent cardiac pacing and direct our attention to alternate sites of pacing, such as the left ventricle and/or the right ventricular outflow tract or septum, if not for all patients, at least for those with left ventricular dysfunction. Indeed, current convincing data on alternate site ventricular pacing are encouraging and this approach should be actively pursued and further investigated in future studies. CONCLUSIONS: Not only is spontaneous permanent LBBB harmful to our patients, but the iatrogenic variety produced by right ventricular apical pacing during conventional permanent pacing may also be deleterious to some patients. The compelling evidence presented herein cannot be ignored; it may dictate a change of attitude toward right ventricular apical pacing directing our attention to alternate sites of ventricular pacing and avoidance of the right ventricular apex.     

不同右心室心尖部起搏百分比对心功能的影响

目的 探讨在不同心室起搏百分比(CUM%VP,即起搏心室率占总心室率的百分比)时长期右心室心尖部起搏(RVA)对基础心功能正常患者心室结构和心功能的影响.方法 选取安装起搏器时基础心功能正常、因行起搏器更换和门诊复诊起搏器的患者为研究对象,CUM%VP≥85%组78例,CUM%VP≤40%组63例.以新发心力衰竭、死亡及左心室重构、功能受损为终点,比较2组之间的发生率;同时观察左心室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)、左心室射血分数(LVEF)、室间隔厚度(IVS)从基线至随访结束时的改变(ALVEDD、△LVEF、△IVS).结果 两次评估相隔的平均时间CUM%VP≥85%组为7.4年,CUM%VP≤40%组为7.7年.起搏前2组患者年龄、性别、总起搏时间、起搏模式、基础疾病及心脏超声指标等情况基本相似,差异无统计学意义(P均＞0.05);随访结束时,CUM%VP≥85%组与CUM%VP≤40%组△LVEDD分别为(3.8±0.5)、(1.4±0.4)mm(t=4.540,P＜0.01),△LVEF分别为(-6.5±1.2)%、(-3.3±1.0)%(t=2.578,P=0.011),而△IVS比较差异无统计学意义;随访结束时2组均无死亡,CUM%VP≥85%组和CUM%VP≤40%组左心室重构、功能受损发生率分别为25.6%(20/78)、6.3%(4/36),差异有统计学意义(x2=9.183,P=0.002);新发心力衰竭发生率分别为10.3%(8/78)、1.6%(1/36),2组比较差异有统计学意义(x2=4.383,P=0.036).结论 基础心功能正常患者长期右心室心尖部起搏(RVA)存在发生心室重构、功能受损和心力衰竭的可能,起搏时间越长、CUM%VP越高其发生风险越大.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the effect of permanent right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing in different cumulative percent of right ventricular pacing( CUM% VP) on the heart function and cardiac ventricle structure in subjects with normal basic heart function. Methods Patients who had implanted pacemaker when heart function was still normal were recruited in the study while they revisited for replacement or examinations of implanted pacemaker at outpatient. According to different CUM% VP, patients were divided into group A ( CUM% VP≥85% ,n =78) and group B( CUM% VP≤40% ,n =63) . The primary composite endpoint was defined as new-onset heart failure, death, left ventricular ( LV ) dysfunction and remodeling. The occurrence of endpoints were compared between the two groups. The left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and interventricular septum(IVS) were measured through baseline and follow-up, their absolute alterations ( △ LVEF, △ LVEDD and △ IVS ) were observed. Results The mean duration of two assessment was 7.4 years in group A and 7.7 years in group B, respectively. Before pacemaker implantation,there were no differences in age, sex, basic diseases, cardiac function and constituent ratio of pacemakers between the two groups. By comparing the outcomes of group A with those of group B at the end of follow up, we found that: △ LVEDD in group A was significantly larger than that in group B ( [3. 8 ± 0. 5] mm vs [1.4 ± 0. 4] mm,t = 4. 540,P ＜ 0. 01 ), △ LVEF was ( - 6.5 ± 1.2) % and ( - 3.3 ± 1.0) % in group A and B, respectively,with significant difference between the two groups(t = 2. 578 ,P ＜0. 01 ). There were no significant difference in AIVS between the two groups. No death occurred in both group at the end of follow up. The incidence of LV dysfunction and remodeling was 25.6% (20/78) in group A,which was significantly higher than that of 6.3% (4/63) in group B( x2 =9. 183 ,P =0. 002). and the incidence of new-onset heart failure was 10. 3% (8/78)in group A,which was significantly higher than that of 1.6% (1/63) in group B (x2 =4.383,P =0.036).Conclusion Among patients with normal basic LV function who underwent permanent RVA pacing,there are potential risk in developing LV remodel, function damage and heart failure. The risk increases with the pacing time getting longer and CUM% VP getting higher.     

组织多普勒成像评价右心室心尖部与右心室流出道间隔部起搏对心功能的影响

目的运用组织多普勒成像技术（TDI）比较右心室流出道（RVOT）间隔部起搏和右心室心尖部（RVA）起搏对心功能的影响。方法将缓慢心律失常患者65例随机分为RVA起搏组（n=30）、RVOT起搏组（n=35）。于起搏器置入术前、术后1个月、3个月、6个月及12个月分别采用组织多普勒速度-时间曲线测量二尖瓣环舒张早期运动速度（Ea）、收缩期运动速度（Sa）、Tei指数;采用SIMPSON法测量左心室射血分数（LVEF）;采用脉冲多普勒测定二尖瓣口舒张早期最大血流速度（E）,并计算E与Ea比值（E/Ea）。结果 RVA与RVOT两组术前与术后1、3个月的各项指标差异均无统计学意义;术后1、3个月LVEF（61.89±3.37）%vs（61.51±3.11）%,（60.22±4.85）%vs（60.32±4.25）%,Sa（11.38±1.14）cm/s vs（11.44±2.14）,（10.88±1.91）cm/s vs（11.02±1.31）cm/s,E/A 0.96±0.19 vs 0.97±0.23,0.95±0.15 vs 0.96±0.13,E/Ea 8.8±3.6 vs 8.4±4.3,9.1±4.3 vs 8.8±3.2,Tei指数0.48±0.05 vs 0.47±0.08,0.50±0.20 vs 0.47±0.11（均P〉0.05）;术后6个月时RVA起搏组与RVOT起搏组比较,Tei指数及E/Ea增高（0.76±0.26 vs 0.67±0.32,10.9±3.96 vs 9.0±2.8,均P〈0.05）,术后12个月Sa降低,（8.22±1.72）cm/s vs（9.52±2.56）cm/s（P〈0.05）。结论 RVA起搏引起心脏收缩不同步,从而损害左心室收缩和舒张功能。RVOT间隔部可获得较RVA起搏更为优化的心功能参数,是较好的右心室起搏部位。