双腔起搏房室间期自动搜索功能对心室起搏及心功能的影响

选择30例接受具有自动AV间期搜索功能(auto AV search)的双腔DDD(R)起搏器治疗的病窦综合征患者。AV search打开时心室起搏(VP)比例,血浆脑钠肽(BNP)水平,左室Tei指数均较关闭时降低(P均<0.01),且血浆BNP水平、左室Tei指数与VP比例均存在较好的相关性(P均<0.05)。结论:双腔起搏器的auto AVsearch功能可有效减少非必须的右室起搏,促进自身心室激动,改善患者血流动力学效应。     

房室间期自动搜索功能起搏器对病窦综合征患者预后的影响

目的观察自动AV间期搜索功能双腔起搏器减少心室起搏的有效性及对心功能和快速房性心律失常的影响。方法 100例植入DDD/R起搏器的患者(有AV搜索功能50例,无AV搜索功能50例),术后1年内程控获取右室起搏百分比、高频心房事件、检查超声心动图及测试血浆心房利钠肽(ANP)值。结果有AV搜索功能组术后3,6,12个月右室起搏百分比明显小于无AV搜索功能组(18.7%±5.6%vs 82.4%±10.2%,19.8%±6.6%vs 77.3%±9.5%,18.4%±7.3%vs 79.2%±8.6%,P均<0.05)。有AV搜索功能组左室舒张末内径、左房内径、左室射血分数均明显改善(P均<0.05);ANP水平明显降低(203.10±28.20 pg/ml vs 298.80±31.50 pg/ml,P<0.05);高频心房事件也显著减少(18±9次vs 39±11次,P<0.05)。结论有AV搜索功能起搏器明显减少病窦综合征患者右室起搏比例,改善心功能,并减少高频心房事件。     

房室间期自动搜索功能对心室起搏及心功能的影响

目的 观察自动AV间期搜索功能双腔起搏器减少心室起搏和高频心房事件的效果及对心功能的影响.方法 60例置入DDD/R起搏器的患者（有AV搜索功能30例,无AV搜索功能30例）,术后1年内程控获取右室起搏百分比、高频心房事件,检查超声心动图,测试血浆利钠肽（BNP）值.结果 有AV搜索功能组术后6个月和12个月右室起搏百分比明显小于无AV搜索功能组[（21.2±6.0）％比（78.3±7.5）％,（19.1±6.5）％比（73.4±7.9）％,P均＜0.05）.AV搜索功能组左室射血分数、左室Tei指数均明显改善（0.57±0.03比0.53±0.05,0.48±0.15比0.68±0.20,P均＜0.05）;BNP水平明显降低[（75.2±34.5）pg/ml）比（37.0±16.4）pg/ml,P＜0.05];高频心房事件也显著减少[（42±10）次比（19±11）次,P＜0.05].结论 AV自动搜索功能起搏器可有效减少不必要的右室起搏及高频心房事件,改善血流动力学效应.     

EnPulse起搏器自动化功能的临床研究

目的:通过对EnPulse起搏器安置患者的随访,了解心房及心室自动阈值管理、自动AV间期搜索等功能的安全性和有效性.方法:选取置入Enpluse E2D01起搏器患者15例,分别于起搏器置入后1个月及6个月时复查起搏器参数,包括起搏器最近1次自动测量的心房及心室起搏阈值,手动测量心房及心室起搏阈值,记录患者心室感知占心室总事件的比例,并记录由Search AV+所设定AV间期基础上的心室感知事件所占心室总事件的比例.结果:1个月及6个月随访时,手动测量心房及心室阈值与自动测量心房及心室阈值差异无统计学意义.术后病态窦房结综合征患者大部分心室事件为感知事件,其中绝大多数由search AV+功能参与.结论:EnPulse起搏器的自动AV搜索功能、心房及心室自动阈值管理是安全有效的.     

对心室起搏管理的再认识

心室起搏管理(MVP)这一功能为美敦力公司开发,MVP模式下,双腔起搏器的基本起搏模式为AAI(R),但起搏器的心室通道具有感知功能和备用起搏功能,起搏模式可以在AAI(R)和DDD(R)之间转换。在AAI(R)起搏模式下,单个心房激动未下传激动心室并不触发起搏器发生模式转换,也不触发起搏器发放心室脉冲(VP),心室备用脉冲的发放时间为心房逸搏间期计时结束后的80 ms处;如果连续4个P波中有2个不能下传激动心室,则AAI(R)起搏模式将自动转换为DDD(R)起搏模式。MVP功能进行自身房室传导搜索时的心室漏搏会增加患者的不适,心室漏搏造成的长短周期序列可能会诱发心律失常,即使起搏器能搜索到自身房室传导,但如果自身房室传导间期过长,则失去了房室顺序收缩对心输出量的改善。如存在心房起搏功能或心房感知功能不良会造成房室不同步。病窦综合征患者植入有MVP功能的起搏器后,AAI(R)起搏模式下如果心房通道发生超感知,会导致心室漏搏。MVP功能打开时会抑制心室安全起搏功能发挥作用。如室性早搏或交界区早搏的QRS波位于心房起搏后80 ms内,不会被起搏器感知,使起搏器判断错误,起搏器误认为心室发生了漏搏,触发心室备用脉冲在心房逸搏间期结束后80 ms处发放。上述缺点限制了MVP功能在临床上的使用,如能对MVP功能做一改进,进行自身房室传导搜索时如果在两个心房事件间期的50%处或心房事件后一定时间处(如350 ms时)仍未搜索到自身房室传导时,起搏器发放心室备用脉冲,可能会减少MVP的不良影响,这一改进和AV Search的区别在于房室搜索是逐渐延长还是突然延长。     

双腔起搏器自动房室间期搜索功能的临床随访观察

目的 观察双腔起搏器自动房室间期搜索功能(AV Search)减少心室起搏的有效性及对血流动力学和快速房性心律失常的影响.方法 对两种DDD/R起搏器97例(有AV Search功能47例,无AV Search功能50例)患者术后半年内随访观察.结果 有AV Search功能组术后1、3、6个月右心室起搏百分比明显小于无AV Search功能组[(19.2±5.6)%vs(80.4±10.2)%,(17.8±6.6)%vs(75.3±9.5)%,(17.4±7.3)%VS[76.2±8.6]%,P<0.05].有AV Search功能组心脏指数、每搏量、左心室舒张末内径、左心房内径及患者心功能分级均无明显改善(P>0.05);而左心窒射血分数则高于无AV Search功能组(P<0.05).高频心房事件也显著减少((31±9)vs(49±11),P<0.05].结论 有AV Search功能DDD/R双腔起搏器在减少非必须的心室起搏,改善血流动力学,减少高频心房事件方面优于与无AV Search功能DDD/R起搏器.     

三腔起搏心电图(二)

<正>2 DDT(V)及其他心室触发模式2.1工作原理三腔起搏器在运行DDD模式时,在起搏或感知的AV间期内如果发生心室激动事件(房室结下传导或室性、交接区异位心律)。该事件通过心室电极导线被心室电路感知(通常为右心室,也可为左心室或双心室)后抑制心室脉冲发放,将失去三腔起搏器双室起搏的作用。对于PR间期较短的患者,虽然可通过缩短起搏器的AV间期达到双室同步起搏,但过短的AV间期也会影响心脏的功能。为了确保AV间期内发     

双腔起搏器突发起搏AV间期缩短四例

通过对4例双腔起搏器突发起搏AV间期缩短的心电图分析,阐述了引发起搏AV间期缩短的原因,其中1例因起搏器参数设置不当导致心室安全起搏脉冲发放,1例是开启AV间期负滞后搜索功能,1例是开启心室起搏管理功能(MVP),1例是开启心室起搏阈值自动检测功能。     

双腔起搏器的Beat to Beat自动模式转换功能

双腔起搏器除了单腔起搏器AAI及VVI具有的一般功能外，还有一个独具的房室之间的传导功能，这是指双腔起搏器的心房感知器感知到有效的心电信号时立即触发设定的AV间期，当达到AV间期而没有出现自主的心室电活动时，起搏器将发放一次心室起搏脉冲起搏心室，这一功能称为双腔起搏器的传导功能，也称心室的跟随功能。例如Ⅲ度房室传导阻滞的患者置入双腔起搏器后，     

心室起搏管理功能降低病窦综合征患者高比例的右室起搏

目的评估具有心室起搏管理(MVP)功能的双腔起搏器对高比例右室起搏的病窦综合征(SSS)患者的疗效。方法 35例SSS患者,房室传导正常或合并间歇性房室传导阻滞(AVB),至少植入了两年双腔起搏器(DDD/R),并计划更换,入组前1个月以上的心室起搏比例超过40%。均植入具有MVP功能的双腔起搏器,随机程控MVP启动(MVP on组,n=17)或者关闭(MVP off组,n=18)。术前、术后6个月行血浆脑钠肽(BNP)测定;心脏超声测定左室收缩末期内径(LVESD),左室舒张末期内径(LVEDD),左室射血分数(LVEF);并于术后6个月程控起搏器了解右室起搏比例、心房高频事件。结果术前两组血浆BNP及LVESD、LVEDD、LVEF比较无显著差异(P>0.05);术后两组有关心脏超声指标无明显变化(P>0.05)。MVP on组术后较术前血浆BNP有明显下降(P﹤0.05),与MVP off组比较,MVP on组术后右室起搏百分比、心房高频事件发生率均有显著下降(2.6%±0.6%vs 48.4%±10.5%,15.7%±2.3%vs 62.0%±7.8%;P﹤0.01)。结论具有MVP功能的DDD/R起搏器能降低高比例右室起搏的SSS的右室起搏比例及心房高频事件的发生率。     

Randomized pilot study of a new atrial-based minimal ventricular pacing mode in dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that a new minimal ventricular pacing mode (MVP) that provides AAI/R pacing with ventricular monitoring and back-up DDD/R pacing as needed during AV block (AVB) would significantly reduce cumulative percent ventricular pacing compared to DDD/R. BACKGROUND: Conventional DDD/R mode often results in high cumulative percent ventricular pacing that may adversely affect ventricular function and increase risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation. METHODS: MVP was made operational in 30 patients with DDD/R implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and no history of AVB. Patients were randomized to one week each in DDD/R and MVP. Holter monitor recordings (ECG, intracardiac electrograms, and event markers) and device diagnostics were analyzed for cumulative % atrial paced (Cum%AP), cumulative percent ventricular pacing, and frequency and duration of DDD/R pacing back-up. Diaries were used to report symptoms. RESULTS: Age of the study population was 61 years +/- 12 years and 83% were male. Baseline PR interval was 204 ms +/- 32 ms and programmed AV intervals (DDD/R) were 200 ms +/- 50 ms (paced)/167 ms +/- 54 ms (sensed). Cum%AP was similar between MVP and DDD/R (47.9 +/- 37 vs 46.3 +/- 36). Cumulative percent ventricular pacing was significantly lower in MVP vs DDD/R (3.79 +/- 16.3 vs 80.6 +/- 33.8, P < .0001). Back-up DDD/R pacing during MVP operation due to transient AVB occurred in 10% of patients (9.3 +/- 7.4 [range 1-15] episodes/patient-day, duration 39.7 minutes +/- 156 minutes). Fifteen percent of AV intervals during MVP operation exceeded 300 ms. No significant symptoms were reported during MVP operation. CONCLUSIONS: MVP dramatically reduced cumulative percent ventricular pacing compared to DDD/R while maintaining AV synchrony and providing sensor-modulated atrial pacing support. Intermittent oscillations between MVP and DDD/R during transient AV block appeared safe and well tolerated.     

阿托伐他汀对植入双腔心脏起搏器的病态窦房结综合征患者左心室重构的影响

目的:探讨阿托伐他汀对植入双腔心脏起搏器(DDD)的病态窦房结综合征(SSS)患者左心室重构的影响。方法:选择在本院心血管内科住院并行DDD植入术的SSS患者108例为研究对象,随机分为常规治疗组(54例,起搏器植入后给予常规抗心律失常药物治疗)和阿托伐他汀组(54例,在常规治疗基础上给予阿托伐他汀治疗)。6个月后,比较两组手术前后左心室重塑指标、心功能指标、心房高频事件(AHREs)发作次数、AHREs持续时间等变化,同时记录治疗期间不良反应。结果:术后6个月,与常规治疗组比较,阿托伐他汀组左室射血分数(LVEF)[(63.91±5.12)%比(65.84±4.85)%]显著提高,LVEDd[(44.26±4.05)mm比(42.48±3.84)mm]和LVESd[(30.89±3.17)mm比(29.31±2.84)mm]显著减小(P<0.05或<0.01);血浆BNP[(127.84±30.84)pg/ml比(98.18±25.95)pg/ml]和NT-proBNP[(313.57±61.56)pg/ml比(269.46±54.48)pg/ml]水平显著降低(P均=0.001);AHREs发作次数[(285.38±45.54)次/年比(263.36±51.28)次/年]和AHREs时间[(17.32±7.54)h/年比(12.74±7.32)h/年]均显著减少(P<0.05或<0.01)。两组治疗期间均未出现肌溶解、转氨酶显著升高(3倍以上)等不良反应。结论:阿托伐他汀可逆转双腔心脏起搏器植入术后病态窦房结综合征患者左心室重构,提高心功能,减少术后心房颤动的发生,且安全性高。     

Single-chamber ventricular pacing increases markers of left ventricular dysfunction compared with dual-chamber pacing.

AIMS: Large randomized trials comparing DDD with VVI pacing have shown no differences in mortality, but conflicting evidence exists in regard to heart failure endpoints. Here we evaluated the effect of pacing mode on serum levels of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and amino-terminal-proBNP (NT-proBNP). Methods Forty-one patients (age 73 +/- 10 years) with dual-chamber pacemakers were included in a prospective, single-blind, randomized crossover study evaluating the impact of DDD(R)/VDD versus VVI(R) mode on objective and functional parameters. Data were collected after a 2-week run-in phase and after 2 weeks each of VVI(R) and DDD(R)/VDD pacing or vice versa. Results BNP and NT-proBNP levels during DDD(R)/VDD stimulation (151 +/- 131 and 547 +/- 598 pg/mL) showed no change compared with baseline (154 +/- 130 and 565 +/- 555 pg/mL), but a significant 2.4-fold increase was observed during VVI(R) mode [360 +/- 221 and 1298 +/- 1032 pg/mL; P < 0.001 compared with DDD(R)/VDD]. The assessment of functional class, the presence of pacemaker syndrome [49% in VVI(R) mode] and the patients' preferred pacing mode showed significant differences in favour of DDD(R)/VDD pacing. CONCLUSION: Patients can differentiate between DDD(R)/VDD and VVI(R) pacing, and prefer the former. Compared with DDD(R)/VDD pacing, VVI(R) stimulation induces a two- to three-fold increase in serum BNP and NT-proBNP levels.     

Multicenter, prospective, randomized safety and efficacy study of a new atrial-based managed ventricular pacing mode (MVP) in dual chamber ICDs

BACKGROUND: Ventricular desynchronization caused by right ventricular pacing may impair ventricular function and increase risk of heart failure (CHF), atrial fibrillation (AF), and death. Conventional DDD/R mode often results in high cumulative percentage ventricular pacing (Cum%VP). We hypothesized that a new managed ventricular pacing mode (MVP) would safely provide AAI/R pacing with ventricular monitoring and DDD/R during AV block (AVB) and reduce Cum%VP compared to DDD/R. METHODS: MVP RAMware was downloaded in 181 patients with Marquis DR ICDs. Patients were initially randomized to either MVP or DDD/R for 1 month, then crossed over to the opposite mode for 1 month. ICD diagnostics were analyzed for cumulative percentage atrial pacing (Cum%AP), Cum%VP, and duration of DDD/R pacing for spontaneous AVB. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics included age 66 +/- 12 years, EF 36 +/- 14%, and NYHA Class II-III 36%. Baseline PR interval was 190 +/- 53 msec and programmed AV intervals (DDD/R) were 216 +/- 50 (paced)/189 +/- 53 (sensed) msec. Mean Cum%VP was significantly lower in MVP versus DDD/R (4.1 +/- 16.3 vs 73.8 +/- 32.5, P < 0.0001). The median absolute and relative reductions in Cum%VP during MVP were 85.0 and 99.9, respectively. Mean Cum%AP was not different between MVP versus DDD/R (48.7 +/- 38.5 vs 47.3 +/- 38.4, P = 0.83). During MVP overall time spent in AAI/R was 89.6% (intrinsic conduction), DDD/R 6.7% (intermittent AVB), and DDI/R 3.7% (AF). No adverse events were attributed to MVP. CONCLUSIONS: MVP safely achieves functional atrial pacing by limiting ventricular pacing to periods of intermittent AVB and AF in ICD patients, significantly reducing Cum%VP compared to DDD/R. MVP is a universal pacing mode that adapts to AVB and AF, providing both atrial pacing and ventricular pacing support when needed.     

Unterstützung der spontanen atrioventrukulären Überleitung bei Patienten mit DDD(R)-Schrittmachern Effektivität und Sicherheit

AIM: In a prospective and randomized multicenter study using a cross-over protocol we compared the efficacy and the safety of the ELA medical mode-switch algorithm (DDD/AMC = DDD to AAI) to conventional DDD stimulation in patients with spontaneous AV conduction. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Forty-eight patients with a mean age of 67 +/- 13 years were included. Underlying heart disease was present in 54%. Pacemaker indications were paroxysmal AV block (21%), sick-sinus syndrome (46%), paroxysmal AV block + sick-sinus syndrome (31%) and tachycardia-bradycardia syndrome (8%). Patients were excluded from the study in case of a permanent 1st to 3rd degree AV block, a right bundle-branch block with QRS > 120 ms, severe coronary heart disease or idiopathic cardiomyopathy. The programming of the pacemaker was randomized to either DDD/AMC or DDD and was crossed over after 1 month. The AV interval (AVI) which was programmed in conventional DDD pacing was calculated as AVI = PR (or AR) + 30 ms at rest or as AVI = PR (or AR) - 50 ms during exercise. When the DDD/AMC mode was programmed, the AV interval was calculated automatically. We analyzed the AV interval, the frequency of ventricular pacing, the number of pacemaker-induced tachycardias, the number of atrial tachyarrhythmias, and the final programming which was left to the physician's choice. RESULTS: The AV interval after conventional DDD stimulation was 201 +/- 38 ms vs 195 +/- 28 ms with DDD/AMC (p = ns). Ventricular stimulation was significantly less often in the DDD/AMC mode than in the DDD mode (15 +/- 17% vs 48 +/- 37%, p < 0.001). Thereby the DDD/AMC algorithm led to a 69% reduction of ventricular pacing which means an approximately 5.5 months prolongation of the battery lifetime. There was no significant difference in the incidence of pacemaker-induced tachycardias. At the end of the study 77% of the physicians programmed the DDD/AMC mode. CONCLUSION: The analyzed DDD/AMC mode-switch algorithm leads to a significant reduction of ventricular pacing in patients with spontaneous AV conduction or with only paroxysmal AV block. Thereby the battery lifetime is prolonged and the incidence of complications due to ventricular pacing can be reduced.     

不同起搏模式对病态窦房结综合征患者心功能长期影响的探讨

目的前瞻性观察不同起搏模式对心功能长期的影响并探讨可能机制。方法 185例病态窦房结综合征（SSS）患者均采用常规方法经锁骨下静脉途径成功置入永久双腔心脏起搏器,术后即刻程控起搏器,根据SAS软件的PROC程序产生一组随机序列分为AAI（92例）及DDD（93例）起搏组。采用心脏超声观察术前,术后1、2、5年左室舒张末容积（LVEDV）、左室收缩末容积（LVESV）及左室射血分数（LVEF）的变化,比较两种起搏模式对左心功能的影响;术后1、2及5年进行随访结合起搏器程控记录房颤发生并记录DDD起搏组右室起搏百分比（VP%）,探讨VP%与心功能变化及房颤发生的关系。结果 AAI起搏组术前,术后1、2、5年随访LVEDV,LVESV及LVEF比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,DDD起搏组术前、术后1、2、5年LVEDV差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,术后5年LVESV（60.33±13.28）ml较术后1、2年增加,差异有统计学意义（F=2.7388,P〈0.05）,术后5年LVEF（41.75±8.74）%较术前、术后1、2年明显降低,差异有统计学意义（F=33.4393,P〈0.05）;AAI组与DDD组房颤的发生差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。术后5年DDD组中〈50%VP%,组中出现房颤患者为3例,≥50%VP%组中出现房颤患者为15例,两组之间房颤的发生率差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论在DDD起搏模式下,高的VP%可对患者的左心功能造成损害并增加房颤的发生。对于不合并房室传导阻滞的SSS患者,AAI起搏较DDD起搏能使患者更受益。     

右心室不同位点起搏对起搏依赖性患者血BNP的影响

目的比较右心室间隔部起搏与右心室心尖部起搏对起搏依赖性患者血BNP(脑钠肽)的影响。方法36例慢室率房颤伴高度或Ⅲ度房室传导阻滞,16例窦律伴Ⅲ度房室传导阻滞,20例显著窦性心动过缓,共72例患者,均植入VVI型心脏起搏器,按心室电极固定部位不同随机分为右心室间隔部起搏组(RVS组)和右心室心尖部起搏组(RVA组),观察2组术前与术后心电图QRS波宽度和形态;比较2组术前与术后血BNP(脑钠肽)变化。结果RVA组起搏心电图Ⅱ导联QRS间期显著长于RVS组([0.20±0.03]s vs[0.12±0.04]s,P<0.01),术前2组BNP水平差异无统计学意义,术后3个月随访检测BNP,RVA组较RVS组有显著升高([121.8±5.2]pg/ml vs[57.1±6.6]pg/ml,P<0.01)。结论RVA起搏扰乱了双心室电同步,恶化了血流动力学和心功能,RVS起搏尽可能的维持了双心室激动顺序和双心室收缩同步性,对血流动力学影响较小,RVS起搏是比RVA起搏更加符合生理的起搏方式。