心房颤动治疗的最新进展

本文综述了心房颤动(Af)在治疗方面新的研究进展,主要从Af的转复和维持、控制心室率、预防血栓栓塞等三方面加以介绍。     

心房颤动的药物治疗现状和进展

心房颤动(AF)是临床常见的心律失常之一,患病率和致残致死率高,药物疗效不理想.近年来,随着对AF发生和维持机制的不断了解,特别是新药不断问世、传统药物新功能的研究,药物治疗已取得了较大进展.本文主要从心率控制、节律控制、改善心房重构和抗炎等方面加以介绍.     

节律及频率控制治疗对风心病伴房颤患者预后的影响

目的观察控制心室率(频率控制)与恢复并维持窦性心律(节律控制)对风心病伴房颤(AF)患者预后的影响。方法频率控制组使用阿替洛尔和地高辛控制心室率;节律控制组用胺碘酮或直流电转复,并用胺碘酮维持窦性心律。比较3年后两组的病死率、致残率、生活质量及住院率。结果两组病死率、生活质量无显著性差异(P>0.05),频率控制组的致残率、住院率低于节律控制组(P<0.05)。结论应将控制心室率作为AF的一线干预措施。     

特殊心房起搏程序预防和治疗阵发性心房颤动的临床效果

目的评价特殊心房起搏程序预防和治疗阵发性心房颤动(PAF)的临床效果。方法12例病窦综合征合并PAF患者植入Vitatron Selection 900E(AF2.0、DDDR)型双腔起搏器,比较患者术后不同阶段PAF的发作总数、持续时间、AF负荷和心房起搏比率。结果除1例外,其余11例术后第2个月和第6个月(起搏预防阶段)比术后第1个月(监测阶段)的PAF事件数[80(25;215),57(12;102)vs 203(86;425)],房颤总持续时间[1.9 d(0.6d;5.3 d),1.5 d(0.3 d;6.1 d)vs 2.9 d(0.8 d;9.8 d)],AF负荷[6.3%(2.0%;17.7%),5.0%(1.0%;20.6%)vs 9.6%(2.7%;32.8%)]均减低(P均<0.05),心房起搏比率增加[60%(40%;80%),54%(42%;84%)vs46%(26%;54%),P<0.05]。结论预防性心房起搏程序可以减少PAF事件的发生,降低AF负荷,改善患者的症状,具有短期的疗效。     

胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死并心房颤动的疗效

目的:观察胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死(AMI)并心房颤动(房颤)的临床疗效及安全性.方法:对34例AMI并房颤患者首剂静脉注射胺碘酮150 mg,随后以0.5～1.5 mg/min维持静脉滴注.静脉用药2～7(3.24±1.7)d.结果:房颤转复率2 h内为47.1%(16/34),24 h内为70.6%(24/34),48 h内为85.3%(29/34),72h内为91.2%(31/34).治疗期间,5例(14.7%)出现窦性心动过缓,减量后心率恢复4例(11.8%);4例(11.8%)出现血压降低,用多巴胺后血压上升至正常.结论:静脉注射胺碘酮对AMI并房颤疗效明显,未见严重不良反应.     

阵发性房颤患者房颤发作时心房电极植入的可行性

目的　探讨阵发性房颤患者在房颤发作时植入心房电极的方法和可靠性。方法　对 10例房颤发作时植入心房电极的患者与同期窦律下植入心房电极患者的植入时间、术中以及术后心房电极的感知、起搏功能进行对比随访观察。结果　阵发房颤患者恢复窦性心律后测定心房感知和起搏功能良好 ,房颤发作时所测得的房颤波振幅与窦性心律时所测心房波振幅有相关性 ,其手术时间和X线曝光时间与窦律下植入起搏器的患者无明显差异。结论　房颤发作时植入心房电极临床上是可行的     

氯沙坦对家兔房颤的电生理研究

目的探讨氯沙坦对家兔快速心房起搏所致房颤(AF)的预防作用。方法28只新西兰大耳白兔,随机分为氯沙坦组和对照组,前者灌胃法喂以氯沙坦15mg·kg-1·d-1,后者单纯饲料喂养,两组均喂养4周。4周后,颈内静脉切开置入4F电极导管,心房快速起搏1h后,记录起搏前、后的心房有效不应期(AERP);然后猝发S1S1刺激诱发AF,观察AF的诱发率、房颤周长(AFCL)和持续时间。结果①起搏前、后AERP缩短值,氯沙坦组明显小于对照组[(16.43±5.56)ms和(30.71±8.86)ms,P<0.01]。②AF的诱发率,氯沙坦组少于对照组(4/14和12/14,P=0.006)。③AF发作的持续时间,氯沙坦组短于对照组[(47.5±9.6)s和(115.0±8.0)s,P<0.001]。④AFCL,氯沙坦组长于对照组[(85.0±10.0)ms和(45.0±8.0)ms,P<0.001]。结论氯沙坦可有效预防兔快速心房起搏所致AF的发生。     

卡托普利治疗急性心肌梗塞合并心房颤动的临床观察

目的:观察卡托普利在急性心肌梗塞(AMI)合并心房颤动治疗中的作用。方法:比较AMI合并心房颤动卡托普利治疗组和非卡托普利治疗组(对照组)的阵发性心房颤动(PAF)再发率,转为持续性或永久性心房颤动的发生率,以及缺血相关事件发生率。结果:AMI合并心房颤动卡托普利治疗组PAF再发率(12.5%),转为持续性或永久性心房颤动的发生率(6.2%),以及缺血相关事件发生率(25%)明显低于对照组(25.8%,16.1%,41.9%,P<0.05)。结论:卡托普利治疗急性心肌梗塞合并心房颤动减少了心房颤动的复发率,并减少其缺血事件的发生率。     

安置心脏起搏器患者术后心房颤动的多因素分析

目的观察安置心脏起搏器患者术后发生心房颤动(房颤)的相关因素.方法回顾性随访了107例安装起搏器的患者,其中VVI(R)组起搏器共53例,随访时间为(7.09±4.13)年;房室顺序起搏组AAI、VDD(R)、DDD(R)型起搏器共54例,随访时间为(3.41±2.21)年.随访时收集患者置入起搏器时的年龄、心律失常的类型、术前有无阵发性房颤、起搏器的类型、至随访时起搏器置入时间以及术后发生持续性房颤的时间,每例患者至少有一份心电图,部分患者做Holter检查,明确是否发生持续性房颤.通过统计学Logistic回归分析,阐明不同类型起搏器术后发生房颤的影响因素.结果随访的107例中共有17例发生持续性房颤;其中VVI(R)组12例,房颤的发生率为22.64%;房室顺序起搏组5例,房颤的发生率为9.26%.在VVI(R)组,病态窦房结综合征、原有阵发性房颤、起搏器置入后时间均为术后发生房颤的独立影响因素;在房室顺序起搏组,只有原有阵发性房颤是术后发生房颤的影响因素.结论起搏器术后发生房颤有多种影响因素,其中在VVI(R)组,病态窦房结综合征、原有阵发性房颤及起搏器置入后时间均为术后发生持续性房颤的独立影响因素;在房室顺序起搏组,原有阵发性房颤为术后发生持续性房颤的影响因素.     

长期心房与心室起搏对心房颤动发生率的影响

目的 为比较长期心房与心室起博心房颤动(Af)发生率的影响.方法 选择国内较大的三家医院1992年至1994年期间内安装人工心脏起搏器的病人,随访观察心房起搏(安装了AAI、AAIR、DDD及DDDR起博器)和心室起搏(植入了VVI或VVIR起搏器)Af的发生情况.结果 发现心室搏Af发生有逐年增加的趋势,Af4年发生率为33%,5年为41%,6年为52%.单纯心房起搏或房室顺序起搏Af发生率3%,而单纯心室起搏的病人中约40%出现Af,明显高于心房起搏组,P<0.01.结论 研究证明心房起搏可以减少Af的发生,为起搏方式的选择提供了一个客观根据,提示在临床实践中应该尽量选择AAI和DDD等生理性起搏方式.     

Right atrial overdrive pacing for prevention of symptomatic refractory atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Our aim was to investigate whether right atrial overdrive pacing is effective for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients without bradyarrhythmias. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF refractory to at least two Class I or III antiarrhythmic drugs and without bradyarrhythmias were included. Successful therapy was defined as the combination of (a) a reduction of AF burden with or without AAD use >75%, (b) total AF burden < or =5% per year, and (c) less than one electrical cardioversion per year. Lower rate was set at 70 b.p.m. Additional AF prevention and termination features were used in case of no success.After a median follow-up of 18 (10-55) months, therapy was effective in 19 of the 36 included patients (53%). In 74% of the successfully treated patients, additional antiarrhythmic drugs were used. In successfully treated patients, the AF burden was reduced from 15% (5-100%) to 0% (0-4%). Multivariate analysis showed that the concomitant use of a Class I or III antiarrhythmic drug, a lower AF burden before implantation and the use of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor were predictors of successful therapy. CONCLUSION: Right atrial overdrive pacing in combination with antiarrhythmic drugs seems an attractive treatment option in drug refractory symptomatic AF patients.     

心房颤动犬心房肌肾素-血管紧张素系统改变

目的探讨慢性心房快速起搏诱发心房颤动(房颤)犬心房肌肾素血管紧张素系统(RAS)的改变。方法13只犬随机分为假手术组(n=6)和起搏组(n=7)。起搏组犬无菌开胸后在右心房缝植5对心外膜记录电极,电极尾端经皮下由犬背部穿出;在右心耳缝植螺旋型起搏电极,连接实验用AOO高频起搏器(400次/min),心房快速起搏6周,建立房颤犬模型;假手术组犬仅缝植心外膜记录电极和起搏电极而不起搏。经心外膜电极记录各组犬房颤诱发情况;采用放射免疫方法检测两组犬左心房及右心房组织血管紧张素Ⅰ(AngⅠ)、血管紧张素Ⅱ(AngⅡ)含量及肾素活性;采用逆转录聚合酶链反应(RTPCR)检测两组犬心房肌肾素、血管紧张素原和血管紧张素转换酶mRNA表达水平改变。结果(1)起搏组7只犬均经短阵快速刺激(burstpacing)诱发出房颤,房颤诱发率和平均持续时间较假手术组显著增加(P<0.01);(2)起搏组犬心房肌AngⅠ、AngⅡ含量较假手术组犬心房肌明显升高(P<0.01),肾素活性亦显著增加(P<0.01);同一组犬左心房与右心房组织AngⅠ、AngⅡ含量及肾素活性差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);(3)起搏组犬心房肌肾素、血管紧张素原和血管紧张素转换酶mRNA表达较假手术组犬心房肌显著上调(P<0.01)。结论慢性心房快速起搏诱发房颤犬心房肌AngⅠ、AngⅡ含量及肾素活性显著增加,可能是局部RAS基因表达上调的结果,提示房颤伴随心房肌RAS激活。     

心外膜左心耳起搏建立山羊心房颤动模型

目的探讨开胸置入高频起搏器建立山羊心房颤动(AF)模型的方法和可行性。方法山羊12只,随机分为实验组(6只)与对照组(6只)。开胸后于左心耳底部置入起搏电极,以400±10次/分连续起搏12周,诱导AF。记录山羊体表心电图变化。连续起搏12周采用光学显微镜、电镜观察左、右房游离壁心肌组织学、超微结构的变化。结果1只山羊术中死亡;5只经连续起搏12周后,出现AF心电图改变。左房游离壁较右房游离壁心肌细胞直径变细;左房游离壁较右房游离壁心肌纤维排列紊乱,润盘受损,心肌纤维溶解明显,线粒体增多、体积变大,内质网模糊、有的出现空泡样等改变更加明显。正常对照组左、右房心肌纤维排列规整。结论心外膜左心耳起搏建立AF动物模型是可靠而易行的方法。     

急性心肌梗死后不同时期心房颤动发生的临床机制

目的 探讨急性心肌梗死(AMI)后不同时间发生心房颤动(Af)的临床意义及机制。方法 按AMI后12h内和大于12h发生Af者,将106例有Af的AMI患者分为早期组(48例)和后期组(58例),回顾性分析急性心肌梗死后不同时期心房颤动发生者的超声心动图、冠状动脉造影(CAG),急诊经皮腔内冠动脉成形术(PTCA)和静脉溶栓的临床资料。结果 统计学显示两组的年龄(65.7±12.6岁vs 68.1±10.2岁)、左心房内径(38.1±3.26mm vs 39.O±4.35mm)无显著性差别(P>O.05)。早期组的左心室射血分数(O.58±O.12 vs O.40±O.10,P相似文献   

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.     

不同起搏式对心房颤动发生率的影响

目的 :观察永久性心脏起搏器植入患者的心房颤动发生情况及其机制。方法 :随访心脏起搏器植入患者 2 45例 ,其中完全性房室传导阻滞 10 0例 ,病态窦房结综合征 75例 , 度房室传导阻滞 45例 ,双束支传导阻滞 2 5例 ,除外风湿性心脏病及扩张型心肌病。起搏模式 VVI15 5例 ,DDD6 5例 ,AAI2 5例 ,平均随访时间 3.5年 (1～ 6年 )。结果 :2 45例患者中 5 5例发生心房颤动 (2 2 .4% ) ,其中 VVI模式 44例 (2 7.5 % ) ,DDD8例 (12 .3% ) ,AAI3例 (12 % )。三种起搏模式心房颤动发生率分别为 2 8.4%、 12 .3%、 12 %。 VVI起搏房颤发生率明显高于 AAI、 DDD起搏 (P<0 .0 5 )。病态窦房结综合征心房颤动发生率 (2 9.3% )明显高于另三种病因 (2 0 %、 17.5 %、 2 0 % ,P均 <0 .0 1)。结论 :病态窦房结综合征是引起心房颤动的重要原因。起搏模式对房颤的发生有重要影响 ,机机制可能与室房逆传及心房大小有关     

No evidence of automatic atrial overdrive pacing efficacy on reduction of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is frequently encountered in pacemaker patients, most commonly in sick sinus syndrome. The combination of site-specific pacing in conjunction with an overdrive algorithm combined with antiarrhythmic drugs on the incidence of PAF in patients with a conventional indication for pacing is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with pacemaker indication and PAF received a DDDR-pacemaker, which included an automatic atrial overdrive (AO) algorithm. The atrial lead was implanted in either the right atrial appendage (RAA) (n = 83) or the right low-atrial septum (LAS) (n = 94). The algorithm was switched on or off in a 3 month, single blind crossover design and antiarrhythmic drugs were kept stable. A control group of 96 patients (LAS, n = 14; RAA, n = 84) without PAF served as controls to assess any proarrhythmic effect of overdrive pacing. Atrial fibrillation (AF) burden defined as cumulative time in mode switch was not reduced during automatic AO from either the RAA or from the LAS. The reduction was not effective both for AF of short (<24 h) and long (> or =24 h) duration. There was no atrial proarrhythmia induced by the overdrive algorithm in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: We could not demonstrate a reduction of AF burden defined as cumulative time in AF by the AO algorithm, in patients who are paced for standard indications and PAF, neither from the RAA nor from the LAS.     

阵发性房颤射频消融术后空白期内房性心律失常与房颤远期复发的关系

目的 探讨阵发性房颤射频消融术后3个月（“空白期”）内房性心律失常的发作趋势与远期复发的关系.方法 入选在我院接受首次环肺静脉电隔离射频消融术的阵发性房颤患者50例,并于术后3个月内每月行24h动态心电图检查,同时进行术后定期临床随访和监测12个月.根据术后第12个月体表心电图、24h动态心电图监测及临床随访结果,分为房颤复发组和无复发组,比较复发组患者与无复发组患者术后3个月内房性心律失常发生率及随着时间推移两组房性心律失常的发作趋势.结果 术后第12个月体表心电图及24h动态心电图统计结果显示,房颤复发率为36.0％（18/50）,所有心电图中出现快速型房性心律失常心电图为26.9％,其中房颤20.2％、房扑2.0％、房速4.7％;房性早搏20.1％;窦性心动过缓2.0％.复发组患者术后3个月内房性心律失常的发生率高于无复发组（41.1％比10.2％,P＜0.05）,复发组患者术后3个月内房性心律失常的发生率维持在较高水平（术后3个月分别为44.4％、41.8％、38.5％,P＞0.05）.无复发组患者术后3个月可出现房颤复发,随着时间推移房性心律失常的发生率呈降低趋势（术后3个月分别为18.7％、10.5％、4.4％,P＜0.01）.结论 早期复发不能代表消融失败和晚期复发,但早期房性心律失常发作频繁,则晚期房颤复发的危险性增加.