房间隔起搏临床应用的体会

目的　探讨有适应症的阵发性房颤患者行永久房间隔起搏的可行性及有效性。方法　先行心内电生理标测 ,寻找使双心房同步激动的房间隔最佳起搏点 ,采用主动固定起搏导线固定于该部位。结果　 4例患者窦性心律时房间传导为 10 6 0± 4 3ms ,标测后房间隔起搏房间传导时间为 11 0± 1 1ms,(P <0 0 0 1)。达到了双心房同步起搏。 3例患者成功地植入房间隔主动固定导线 ,一例患者失败。结论　永久房间隔起搏方法在伴有房间传导阻滞的阵发性房颤患者中的应用是安全可行的。     

低位房间隔起搏对病窦综合症伴发作性房颤患者的临床应用

目的:探索低位房间隔起搏导线定位方法,评价房间隔起搏对病窦综合征患者房颤的预防作用。方法:病窦综合征患者48例,以X线及心电图特征定位,主动固定心房电极于低位房间隔,观察起搏后P波时限的变化及房颤的发作频率。结果:所有患者经房间隔起搏后,P波时限均显著缩短,118.00±24.00ms比93.00±16.00ms,差异有统计学意义;原有心房内传导延缓者,起搏后阵发性房颤发作频率明显减少,而心房内传导正常者,房颤发作无明显减少。结论:采用主动固定电极导线在低位房间隔起搏是安全、可行的,它能明显缩短左、右心房激动时间,使心房的除极趋于同步化;对伴房间传导阻滞者,房间隔起搏能减少房颤发作。     

直接房间隔起搏的临床应用

目的 探讨直接房间隔起搏的方法学.方法 将患者分为电生理检查引导组和直接植入组,前者根据电生理的标测结果进行房间隔起搏导线的植入,后者直接应用可控钢丝或者预塑形钢丝进行房间隔起搏导线的植入,术后3、6、12个月随访,观察导线的阈值、感知和阻抗,以及导线脱位等并发症的发生率.结果 电生理检查组15例患者中完成了13例导线植入,急性期脱位2例,慢性脱位1例,直接植入组14例患者均完成起搏导线植入,无导线脱位等并发症,随访中两组之间导线的阈值、感知、阻抗等参数差异均无统计学意义.结论 永久性房间隔起搏是安全、可行的.直接房间隔起搏也有同样高安全性和高成功率.     

心房起搏治疗阵发性心房颤动的临床观察

近年来大量资料证实心房起搏有明显的抗房性心律失常作用 ,本研究对一组接受心房起搏治疗的缓慢型心律失常合并阵发性心房颤动 (房颤 )患者进行了回顾性分析。1.资料与方法 :选择 1993年 2月～ 2 0 0 0年 7月 ,对合并有阵发性房颤患者 38例植入永久性心房起搏装置 ,年龄 38～ 78(6 0± 17)岁。其中 33例为病窦综合征 (病窦 ) ,5例为高度房室传导阻滞。阵发性房颤指术前记录至少 1次房颤发作者。 5例病窦合并阵发性房颤患者 ,由于经济原因 ,行单纯右心房起搏 (ＡＡＩ) ;3例合并房间传导阻滞的患者 ,选择ＤＤＤ起搏器 ,行双心房 右心室三腔起…     

双房同步起搏预防和治疗房性快速性心律失常

目的 观察双房同步起搏技术对伴有房间传导阻滞的阵发性快速性房性心律失常的疗效。方法 病态窦房结综合征合并房间传导阻滞的阵发性快速性房性心律失常患者7例，男4例、女3例，年龄58～78岁。其中4例行双房起搏(AAT)，3例行双房右室三腔起搏(DDD)，经穿刺左锁骨下静脉插入右房、右室和冠状静脉窦起搏电极导线，分别用于起搏右房、右室和左房。结果 起搏器及电极导线均顺利植入，未发生任何并发症。冠状静脉窦电极顶端距冠状静脉窦口2．5—3．5cm，P波振幅为1．6—5．5mV、阻抗624—808Ω,、单极起搏阈值0．5—0．7V。随访2—31个月，7例均健在，房性心律失常的临床发作得到明显控制。结论：双房同步起搏技术是房间传导阻滞合并快速房性心律失常的有效预防和治疗方法。     

双心房右心室起搏器治疗阵发性心房颤动的临床应用

目的　观察双心房右心室三腔起搏治疗快速性房性心律失常的临床效果。探讨双心房右心室三腔起搏运用的原理 ,适应证以及起搏模式的选择。方法　患者 6例 ,男性 4例 ,女性 2例 ,诊断 :阵发性心房颤动、房间传导阻滞。置入双心房右心室三腔起搏器。左心房起搏通过冠状静脉窦植入 2 188电极导线 ,左右心房电极导线通过 Y形转接器与双腔起搏器连接。结果　双心房同步起搏后 ,患者阵发性心房颤动的发作明显减少。结论　初步临床应用提示 ,右心室三腔起搏器双心房同步起搏治疗阵发性心房颤动有效。     

第7页／低位房间隔起搏对病窦综合征伴发作性房颤患者的临床应用（摘要）

目的：探索低位房问隔起搏导线定位方法，评价房间隔起搏对病窦综合征患者房颤的预防作用。方法：病窦综合征患者48例，以X线及心电图特征定位，主动固定心房电极于低位房间隔，观察起搏后P波时限的变化及房颤的发作频率。     

双心房同步起搏治疗阵发性心房颤动的长期疗效观察

双心房同步起搏治疗病态窦房结综合征（病窦综合征）伴有房间阻滞的药物难治性阵发性房性心律失常如阵发性心房颤动（房颤）和心房扑动，国内从1998年开始陆续有部分病例报道，取得了一定的临床效果，但随访的时间都较短。本文报道了自1998年10月到2000年11月间在我院13例植入了双心房同步起搏器患者随访至今的结果，对双心房起搏预防阵发性房颤的长期疗效及冠状静脉窦起搏左心房的安全性和有效性进行探讨和评估。[第一段]     

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。     

低位房间隔起搏的初步临床应用

目的探索主动固定电极导线在低位右心房间隔部起搏的可行性、安全性；比较低位房间隔起搏与高位右心房游离壁起搏对，心房激动时间和起搏参数的影响。方法共入选了50例，患者平均年龄（64．8±11．2）岁，随机分配到低位房间隔起搏组（n=25）和高位右心房游离壁起搏组（n=25），通过比较植入术时间、X线曝光时间、导线固定成功率、起搏参数、植入术并发症等评价低位右心房间隔起搏的可行性；测定不同部位起搏时P波宽度，以评价起搏部位对心房激动时间的影响。结果与高位右心房游离壁起搏组结果比较，低位房间隔起搏组的植入时间、X线曝光时间略有延长；低位房间隔起搏组的导线固定成功率低于右心房游离壁起搏组（84％ VS 100％），两组间的起搏参数、植入术并发症相比差异无统计学意义。低位房间隔起搏时心房激动时问明显短于高位右心房游离壁起搏[（140．5±23．0）ms VS（89．0±14．0）ms]，差异具有统计学意义。结论采用主动固定电极导线在低位房间隔起搏是安全、可行的，它明显缩短左、有心房激动时间，使心房的除极趋于同步化。但低位房间隔起搏的主动固定电极导线植入技术具有一定的难度，需要熟练掌握主动固定导线植入技术的人员方可实施。     

Atrial septal pacing in the prevention of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation refractory to antiarrhythmic drugs

BACKGROUND: Early reports have shown that pacing the atria at a site or sites other than the right atrial appendage may prevent atrial fibrillation. Our centre has shown that pacing the atrial septum reduces the duration of atrial activation which is an important determinant of predisposition to paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Ablation of the atrioventricular (AV) node together with implantation of a pacemaker can control symptoms due to paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients in whom antiarrhythmic drugs have failed. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of atrial septal pacing on patients who were candidates for AV node ablation. METHODS: Atrial septal pacemakers were implanted in 28 patients with symptomatic, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that had been unresponsive to two or more antiarrhythmic drugs. Pacing was not indicated for any reason other than the anticipated need to proceed to AV node ablation. Change in symptoms was assessed by quality of life questionnaires and recurrence of atrial fibrillation was measured objectively by pacemaker interrogation and ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring. RESULTS: Atrial septal pacing in combination with an antiarrhythmic agent resulted in a substantial subjective improvement in 19 patients (68%). Objective data confirmed similar findings; atrial fibrillation was completely or markedly reduced in 17 patients (60%). Six patients experienced a modest improvement in symptoms; in only four patients was it necessary to proceed to AV node ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Atrial septal pacing together with continuance of previously ineffective antiarrhythmic therapy may prevent or markedly reduce the frequency of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and obviate the need to ablate the AV node.     

Septal atrial pacing for the prevention of atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) produces significant morbidity and mortality. The current method of permanent pacing of the right atrium (RA) may cause delayed interatrial conduction and predispose to AF. We hypothesized that atrial septal pacing would reduce AF compared with high RA pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: The patients were randomized into two groups. After randomization, patients received a dual-chamber rate-responsive device capable of mode-switching with advanced telemetry features. Devices were programmed in a standardized manner. To be eligible, the patients were required to have a conventional indication for a permanent pacemaker and recurrent paroxysmal AF. Group 1 was paced from high RA and Group 2 was paced from the atrial septum. Analysis of 43 patients who have completed 6 months of follow-up and 22 patients who completed 12 months of follow-up showed no significant differences in the number of mode-switching episodes or in AF burden between groups (P = NS by Mann-Whitney) although there was a trend for less AF with septal pacing. There were no differences in thresholds, sensing, or lead impedance. Lead parameters remained stable over time and there were no displacements of the electrodes after implantation. No patient experienced lead-related complications. A significant variability in AF burden was noted in this patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of an atrial-active fixation lead on the atrial septum is safe and feasible. However, this study showed no significant difference between septal pacing and high atrial pacing, using the endpoints of AF duration and number of AF episodes.     

A simple method for Bachmann's bundle pacing with indigenous modification of J-stylet

BackgroundPacing in the Bachmann's bundle (BB) area (upper atrial septum) appears superior to right atrial appendage or free wall stimulation for the prevention of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients with atrial conduction delay. However, insertion of active fixation lead in the upper atrial septal position is difficult and time consuming with conventional stylet, inhibiting application of this pacing method in routine practice.MethodsThe technique of positioning the atrial lead in BB with hand-made stylet is presented with emphasis on electrocardiographic P-wave pattern and fluoroscopic landmarks.ResultsThe results demonstrate an acute implantation and short-term success of BB pacing of 14 patients out of 15 patients without major complications. Pacing parameters at implantation and 3 months postprocedure were noted which were within normal limits.ConclusionThese favorable initial results indicate that the positioning of active fixation atrial lead in BB with fluoroscopic landmarks is feasible and reproducible with a simple technique.     

Prävention von Vorhofflimmern durch Schrittmacherstimulation

Several prospective randomized clinical trials have reported that atrial-based "physiological" pacing is associated with a lower incidence of paroxysmal and permanent atrial fibrillation than single-chamber ventricular pacing in patients with conventional pacemaker indication. Whether atrial pacing itself is antiarrhythmic remains still uncertain. By contrast, right ventricular pacing is considered to beget atrial fibrillation, even in preserved AV synchrony during dual-chamber pacing. A number of clinical trials investigated the impact of sitespecific atrial pacing and advanced atrial pacing algorithms on the secondary prevention of atrial fibrillation. Multisite pacing (dual-site right atrial or biatrial pacing) was demonstrated to add only minimal benefit for the prevention of atrial fibrillation. By contrast, in some studies septal pacing and specific atrial pacing algorithms were reported to reduce the recurrence of atrial fibrillation in selected patients. At present, however, it remains unclear how to identify these patients. In clinical practice, the effectiveness of specific atrial pacing algorithms and/or septal pacing has to be tested out in the individual case. These therapeutic options should be considered in patients with a conventional indication for antibradycardia pacing and, additionally, symptomatic atrial fibrillation.     

A comparison between passive and active fixation leads in the coronary sinus for biatrial pacing: initial experience.

AIMS: It has been reported that biatrial pacing can prevent the recurrence of atrial fibrillation. This technique requires a stable coronary sinus (CS) lead position for left atrial pacing. We report our experience of CS pacing with a specifically designed lead [Medtronic 2188 (n= 19)] and active fixation leads [Pacesetter Tendril (n=3), Medtronic Capsurefix (n=6)] in 21 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and a normal mean left atrial size of 39 mm (range 33-54 mm). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Medtronic 2188 lead, successful initial CS canulation and lead positioning was achieved in all 19 patients. One patient developed subclavian vein thrombosis 3 months after initial implant. Eight patients (42%) experienced subsequent lead displacement (12 displacements in total). Of these, seven had their lead replaced with active fixation leads. In addition, two patients underwent active fixation lead implantation at first implant. CS canulation and lead positioning was successful in all nine patients. No patient suffered displacement of an active fixation lead. There were no complications in this group. Twelve of the 19 (66%) Medtronic 2188 leads were functioning at long-term follow-up (11 +/- 4 months) with a biatrial pacing threshold of 2.4 +/- 1 V. Eight of the nine (89%) active fixation leads were functioning at long-term follow-up (6 +/- 3 months) with a biatrial pacing threshold of 2.9 +/- 1.1 V. Using a combined approach 95% of patients had a functioning CS lead at long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: Active fixation leads can safely be used for left atrial pacing via the CS with good long-term pacing thresholds and stability.     

间隔部主动固定电极对老年患者心功能的影响

目的探讨右室间隔部（RVS）主动固定电极对植入永久起搏器的老年患者心功能的影响。方法入选78例植入永久起搏器的老年患者,分为RVS起搏组（实验组,植入主动固定电极,n=42）和右室心尖部（RVA）起搏组（对照组,植入被动固定电极,n=36）,以超声心动图评价两组术前、术后6个月左室缩短率（FS）、每搏输出量（SV）、心输出量（CO）、左室射血分数（LVEF）、E／AI：L值的差异。结果术前两组心功能状况无明显差异（P〉0．05）。术后6个月,RVS起博组与术前相比较,FS、SV、CO、EF、E／A虽有下降趋势,但差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;RVA起博组在术后6个月FS与对照组差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,但SV、CO、EF、E／A均高于RVS起博组（P〈0．05）。两组起搏阈值、感知、阻抗起搏比例及平均心率等差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论RVS起搏对患者心功能的影响优于右室心尖部起搏。     

Combined efficacy of atrial septal lead placement and atrial pacing algorithms for prevention of paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmia

INTRODUCTION: The combined role of atrial septal lead location and atrial pacing algorithms in the prevention of atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT/AF), including both atrial fibrillation and flutter, is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that atrial prevention pacing algorithms could decrease AT/AF frequency in patients with atrial septal leads, bradycardia, and paroxysmal AT/AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 298 patients (age 70 +/- 10 years; 61% male) from 35 centers were implanted with a DDDRP pacing system including three AT/AF prevention pacing algorithms. Lead site was randomized at implant to right atrial septal or nonseptal. Patients were randomized 1 month postimplant to AT/AF prevention ON or OFF for 3 months and then crossed over for 3 months. Patients logged symptomatic AT/AF episodes via a manual activator. Prevention efficacy was evaluated based on intention-to-treat in 277 patients (138 septal) with complete follow-up. No changes in device-recorded AT/AF frequency or burden were observed with algorithms OFF versus ON or between patients randomized to septal versus nonseptal lead location. Analysis of other secondary outcomes revealed that AT/AF prevention pacing resulted in decreased atrial premature contractions in both the septal (1.9 [0.2-8.7] vs 3.3 [0.3-10.6]x 103/day; P < 0.01) and nonseptal groups (0.9 [0.2-3.3] vs 1.3 [0.3-5.5]x 103/day; P < 0.001). Patients with septal leads had fewer symptomatic AT/AF episodes ON versus OFF (1.4 +/- 3.0 vs 2.5 +/- 5.2/month, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The combination of three atrial prevention pacing algorithms did not decrease device classified atrial tachyarrhythmia frequency or burden during a 3-month cross-over period in bradycardic patients and septal or nonseptal atrial pacing leads. Prevention pacing was associated with decreased frequency of premature atrial contractions and with decreased symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia frequency in patients with atrial septal leads.     

Does atrial overdrive pacing prevent paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in paced patients?

The role of atrial overdrive pacing for the suppression of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation remains unclear. To investigate this we have performed a randomised study evaluating the role of an increased atrial base rate in suppressing this arrhythmia in patients implanted with a permanent pacemaker (Chorum ELA) for sick sinus syndrome with previous documented paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Twenty-seven patients (mean age, 69; 15 female) were randomised to two 3-month single-blinded crossover periods of DDDR pacing. The pacemaker was set with a base rate of 60 bpm (normal) during one period and at 10 bpm (overdrive) above the average heart rate during the other, mean (S.D.) 75+/-7 beats/min (range, 70-96). The fallback algorithm of the pacemaker was activated to record the number and duration of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation episodes. During the overdrive period there was a significant increase in the total duration of atrial pacing (normal 60+/-26% vs. overdrive 72+/-28%, P<0.001). However there was no significant difference in the number of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation episodes (normal 43+/-109 vs. overdrive 43+/-106, P=ns), or their total duration (normal 42+/-108 h vs. overdrive 99+/-254 h, P=ns). In conclusion, atrial overdrive pacing, achieved by increasing the atrial base rate, has no incremental benefit in the suppression of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation when compared to rate responsive pacing with a base rate of 60 bpm.