右心室流入道起搏QRS波时限对心功能的影响

目的观察采用右心室流入道起搏治疗缓慢性心律失常时,QRS时限对心功能的影响及与心力衰竭的关系。方法选择64例病态窦房结综合征或Ⅲ度房室传导阻滞的患者,采用右心室流入道起搏治疗,将患者起搏时QRS时限<133 ms者入为A组(34例);起搏时QRS时限≥133 ms者入B组(30例),测量起搏器植入时、起搏3个月和6个月不同时期,QRS时限、血浆心钠肽(BNP)、心排血量(CO)、每搏输出量(SV)、射血分数(EF)和左室舒张末内径(LVDd)的变化。结果术后即刻检测两组QRS时限、BNP值和心脏超声指标无统计学意义(P>0.05),术后3个月、6个月QRS时限、LVDd、BNP,B组明显高于A组(P<0.05),而EF、SV、CO,B组明显低于A组(P<0.05)。结论右室流入道起搏部位QRS时限和心功能密切相关,QRS时限越宽,心功能纠正就越不明显或心力衰竭进一步加重,反之,QRS时限越窄,心功能改善就越明显。     

电极导线在右室心尖部和右室流出道起搏的随访观察

目的评价螺旋电极导线行右室流出道(RVOT)间隔部起搏的可行性。方法连续入组195例具有植入起搏器适应证患者,术前随机分为螺旋主动固定电极导线的RVOT间隔起搏组(A组)和翼状被动固定电极导线的右室心尖部(RVA)起搏组(B组),两组中每例入选患者均分别行RVA和RVOT两个部位起搏测试,最后固定于相应的位置。比较两组术中手术时间、起搏参数、起搏QRS波宽度、手术成功率及起搏3个月、1年和2年后电极导线参数的变化。结果 A组99例,B组96例。两组起搏后QRS波宽度明显大于起搏前,B组起搏QRS波时限长于A组(176.46±24.54 ms vs 165.45±22.78 ms,P=0.001)。用于固定RVOT间隔部的曝光时间长于RVA。两组术中及术后并发症相似,R波振幅术后2年内及两组间无差别。术中A组起搏阈值高于B组(0.71±0.30 V vs0.56±0.19 V),术后2年内起搏阈值两组内及组间无差异。术后3个月时阻抗下降,A组的阻抗低于B组并持续整个随访期间。术后2年内超声心动图参数组内及组间无差别。结论采用螺旋主动固定电极导线进行RVOT起搏是安全可行的。     

关于右心室间隔部起搏的双心室电同步性和血流动力学探讨

目的以右心室心尖部起搏为参照,评估右心室间隔部起搏的双心室电同步性和血流动力学效应。方法20例患者植入全自动双腔(DDD型)起搏器,随机分组,一组10例行间隔部起搏(RVS组),一组行心尖部起搏(RVA组);分析两组有效起搏及1、3个月随访时各起搏参数差异;对比术中心室电极到位所需X线曝光时间、术中及术后并发症;比较术前自身心律心电图、术后起搏心电图的QRS波宽度、形态;比较两组术前和术后6个月随访的左心室射血分数(LVEF)、二尖瓣血流E峰和A峰最大充盈速度比值(E/A)差异。结果RVS组和RVA组起搏电压阈值、电极阻抗、R波高度无明显差异(P>0.05)。电极植入后第1、3个月随访,两组起搏参数之间无明显差异,且动态变化相似;心室电极到位所需X线曝光时间:RVA组为(203.0±127.3)s,RVS组为(581.0±124.7)s(P<0.05)。电极植入术中及术后均未出现并发症;术前和术后心电图Ⅱ导联QRS宽度:RVA组分别为(0.11±0.03)s、(0.19±0.02)s(P<0.05);RVS组分别为(0.10±0.02)s、(0.12±0.02)s(P<0.05),术后QRS形态与术前心电图相似。间隔部起搏和心尖部起搏心电图的QRS波宽度对比,前者明显窄于后者(P<0.01)。术前2组LVEF、E/A比值无明显差异。与术前相比,RVA组6个月随访的LVEF、E/A均明显降低(P<0.05),RVS组无明显变化(P>0.05)。6个月随访RVS组LVEF、E/A均明显高于RVA组(P<0.05)。结论右心室间隔部起搏是安全、有效的,比右心室心尖部起搏更有利于双心室电激动的同步性,且不会给心功能带来明显不良影响。     

右心室不同位点起搏对QRS时限的影响

目的 观察右心室不同起搏位点的QRS时限,为临床导线放置提供参考依据.方法 选择216例符合Ⅰ类或Ⅱa类起搏器植入适应证的患者,在放置心室导线过程中,分别在右心室心尖部、流入道、中位间隔部、高位间隔部和流出道等不同位点起搏右心室,记录起搏时的体表心电图,比较不同位点QRS时限和形态的差异.结果 与基础心电图QRS波比较,所有右心室起搏部位心电图QRS时限均明显增宽(P＜0.001)；以心尖部起搏QRS时限增宽(168±16) ms,其次为流入道(166±15) ms和流出道(165±15) ms；三者比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).间隔部起搏QRS时限明显缩短(P＜0.001),且QRS波形态和电轴正常.中间隔部最短(139± 19) ms,高位间隔部次之(153±14) ms,二者相比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).结论 在所有右心室起搏位点中,中间隔部起搏QRS时限最窄,且形态和电轴正常.中间隔部可能是右心室最理想起搏选择位点.     

右心室间隔部与心尖部起搏对心功能影响的对比研究

目的探讨右心室心尖部起搏与右心室间隔部起搏对心室电极植入手术的效果。方法选取完全性房室传导阻滞、窦性心动过缓、有症状的慢-快综合征需置入起搏器的患者90例,随机分为两组,A组45例,采用主动固定电极行右心室间隔部起搏;B组45例,采用被动固定电极行右心室心尖部起搏。观察两组手术时间,术后12个月复查超声心动图,对比治疗前后左心室射血分数（LVEF）、左心室舒张末内径（LVEDD）、室间隔厚度（IVS）、左心室后壁厚度（LVPW）及心电图胸前导联QRS波宽度。对比两组起搏参数和心电图QRS间期相关资料。结果 A组手术平均时间（50.51±6.52）min,B组手术平均时间（63.52±7.34）min,B组手术时间略长,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。两组治疗后LVEF、LVEDD、IVS、LVPW与治疗前比较无统计学意义,且两组比较差异也无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。两组术中RVS起搏阈值、感知阈值、电极阻抗比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。术后A组心脏指数（CI）、每搏量（SV）、二尖瓣血流E峰和A峰最大充盈速度比值（E/A）明显高于B组,A组起搏的QRS波宽度窄于B组,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。与B组起搏相比,RVS起搏时心电轴、QRS波群与正常心室激动顺序的QRS波群形态相似。结论右心室间隔部起搏同期左心室功能、同步性与血流动力优于右心室心尖部起搏者,右心室室间隔起搏更有利于保持患者心功能的稳定。     

永久性心脏起搏器86例临床分析

目的:分析不同心脏起搏部位及起搏模式对永久性心脏起搏治疗患者心功能及生活质量的影响。方法:入选2004年至2006年行永久性起搏器植入手术的患者86例,其中A组:单腔心室起搏(VVI)心尖起搏组(right ventricle apex RVA)31例;B组:VVI高位室间隔起搏组(right high-interventricular septum RHIVS)8例;C组:双腔心脏起搏(DDD)RVA起搏组38例;D组:DDD RHIVS起搏组9例。分别于起搏治疗前后行心电图、彩色多谱勒超声心动图检查,测量QRS波时限、心脏射血分数(EF)值,左心室舒张末期容积指数(EDVI)和收缩末期容积指数(ESVI),并进行明尼苏达心力衰竭患者生活问卷调查(MLHFQ)。结果:1.单腔起搏器组,无论RVA或RHIVS组术后心功能各项指标(EF、ESVI、ED-VI、MLHFQ)均有下降趋势,A组于术后6个月,B组于术后12个月时出现下降趋势。2.双腔起搏器RVA组于术后12个月时心功能出现下降趋势,而双腔RHIVS组术后与术前比较无明显变化。3.组间比较显示:D组心功能各项指标术后均高于A、B、C组。结论:DDD起搏优于VVI起搏,间隔部起搏明显优于心尖部起搏,特别是DDD间隔部起搏对患者的心功能及生活质量的影响最小,接近于生理起搏。     

右室流出道间隔部应用螺旋电极固定起搏对心功能的影响分析

目的比较右室流出道(RVOT)间隔部起搏和右室心尖部起搏(RVA)对心功能的影响,评估螺旋电极进行右室流出道间隔部起搏技术的可行性与安全性。方法选择有永久起搏器植入适应证的患者21例,分为右室流出道间隔部起搏组(试验组),右心室心尖部起搏组(对照组),以超声心动图(UCG)和心电图评价两组术前、术后血流动力学和QRS波宽度差异。结果术后平均随访6个月,结果显示RVOT起搏血流动力学优于RVA起搏(P<0.05),RVOT起搏QRS波宽度较RVA组缩短,有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论利用螺旋电极进行右室流出道间隔部起搏基本可行且较为安全,右室流出道间隔部起搏的血流动力学参数优于右室心尖部。     

右室心尖部起搏QRS波时限对心功能的影响

目的通过观察起搏QRS波时限来预测长期右室心尖部起搏对心脏功能的影响及与心力衰竭的关系。方法对87例因病态窦房结综合征或三度房室阻滞而安装起搏器的病人进行起搏QRS波时限测量、血浆脑钠肽(BNP)的测定、心脏多普勒超声检查并进行长期动态随访,以术后即刻起搏QRS波190ms作为一个分割值把病人分为两组,观察右室心尖部起搏QRS波时限的延长与心力衰竭之间的关系。结果平均随访43±14月,15例(17.2%)出现明显心衰(NYHAⅢ～Ⅳ级)。术后6个月,心衰组的起搏QRS波时限明显延长,血清BNP值增高(p<0.01)。术后6个月,相比与起搏QRS<190ms组,起搏QRS≥190ms组的BNP明显增高(p<0.01)。整个随访期间,起搏QRS≥190ms组心衰发生率要明显增高(p<0.01)。结论右室心尖部起搏QRS波时限的延长与心脏功能的受损和心力衰竭发生密切相关,可以作为心脏功能损害的预测指标。     

右室中位间隔起搏的可行性与安全性

目的评价中位右室间隔起搏(RVSP)方法的可行性和安全性。方法选择101例行RVSP,右室心尖部起搏(RVAP)126例作对照。在X线指导下将室间隔分四区,分别为His束区、右室流出道间隔区、低位前间隔区和右室流入道间隔区,精确定位RVSP的主动导线在中位间隔位置。记录术中曝光时间、电极导线植入参数、心电图和术后第3,6,12个月随访资料。结果两组手术曝光时间无差异。RVSP组起搏前后的QRS波形态有稳定的特征性变化,可结合X线用于指导导线定位。RVSP组起搏后的QRS波时限明显小于RVAP组(98.19±22.30 msvs 120.80±24.14 ms,P<0.01),术中两组的心室导线的起搏阈值、电流、阻抗均存在明显差异(0.76±0.30 V vs0.39±0.10 V,0.98±0.52 mA vs 0.36±0.19 mA,690.67±141.64Ωvs 867.16±201.23Ω,P<0.01)。在随访中两组心室起搏阈值和阻抗较稳定。结论在X线指导下将室间隔分区,主动导线能精确、快捷地固定于右室中位间隔部。该部位是较理想的起搏部位,安全可行。     

主动固定螺旋电极在右室流出道间隔部起搏中的应用体会

目的探索采用主动固定螺旋电极行右室间隔部起搏的临床可行性。方法随机选择54例需要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。结果右室流出道间隔部电极定位成功率为98.15%,该部位起搏参数满足起搏要求,同时起搏的QRS波时限较心尖部变窄(130.45±18.24msvs153.11±20.10ms,P<0.001)。结论采用主动固定螺旋电极行右室流出道间隔部起搏安全性高、可行性好。     

Physiological cardiac pacing: Current status

Adverse hemodynamics of right ventricular (RV) pacing is a well-known fact. It was believed to be the result of atrio-ventricular (AV) dyssynchrony and sequential pacing of the atrium and ventricle may solve these problems. However, despite maintenance of AV synchrony, the dual chamber pacemakers in different trials have failed to show its superiority over single chamber RV apical pacing in terms of death, progression of heart failure, and atrial fibrillation (AF). As a consequence, investigators searched for alternate pacing sites with a more physiological activation pattern and better hemodynamics. Direct His bundle pacing and Para-Hisian pacing are the most physiological ventricular pacing sites. But, this is technically difficult. Ventricular septal pacing compared to apical pacing results in a shorter electrical activation delay and consequently less mechanical dyssynchrony. But, the study results are heterogeneous. Selective site atria pacing (atrial septal) is useful for patients with atrial conduction disorders in prevention of AF.     

Permanent HIS bundle Pacing Feasibility in Routine Clinical Practice: Experience from an Indian Center

There is a paucity of experience regarding His bundle pacing (HBP) at laboratories initially attempting the procedure, especially in the Indian scenario. Patient who underwent HBP were selected for pacing therapy or in lieu of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) at a single center. Among 22 patients attempted, 19 patients underwent successful implant, achieving selective HBP in 14 patients. There was a significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (49.3 ± 9.3 vs. 36.7 ± 9.2) in the LV dysfunction subgroup (n = 6). Over a follow-up of 15 ± 6.5 months, thresholds were stable in all except one patient, and there was no requirement of lead revision. In summary, we found that HBP is a feasible option for achieving physiological pacing.     

三极起搏法及其在经食管心房起搏术中的应用价值

为克服现行经食管心房起搏术中常见缺点,作者试用三极起搏法。实验表明:就降低起搏阈值、减小脉冲幅度而沦,三极起搏法显著低于常规二极起搏法;以减轻受检者痛苦,保持起搏稳定为目的,三极起搏法中双正极法明显优于双负极法。双正极法还有图形整洁、起搏P波清晰、方法尤为简便等优点,在经食管心房起搏检查中有其一定的实用价值。     

A feasible approach for direct his-bundle pacing using a new steerable catheter to facilitate precise lead placement

INTRODUCTION: Much clinical evidence has shown that right ventricular (RV) apical pacing is detrimental to left ventricular function. Preservation of the use of the His-Purkinje (H-P) system may be ideal in heart block that is restricted to the AV node, but may be of no benefit when H-P disease exists. AIM: To investigate the feasibility of direct His-bundle pacing (DHBP) using a new system consisting of a steerable catheter and a new 4.1 F screw-in lead. METHOD: Between May and December 2004, 26 patients (19 male, mean age: 77 +/- 5 years) with a standard pacemaker (PM) indication and preserved His-bundle conduction were enrolled and DHBP was attempted. RESULTS: DHBP was achieved in 24 patients (92%); two patients were paced in the His area, but the paced QRS morphology and duration were different from the native QRS. The mean time for lead positioning was 19 +/- 17 minutes, the mean fluoroscopy time was 11 +/- 8 minutes, and the total procedure time (skin-to-skin including positioning of a quadripolar diagnostic catheter for His recording) was 75 +/- 18 minutes. In DHBP pacing, the acute pacing threshold was 2.3 +/- 1.0 V at a pulse duration of 0.5 msec, and the sensed potentials were 2.9 +/- 2.0 mV. At a 3-month follow-up examination, the same QRS duration and morphology recorded on implantation were observed in all patients. The pacing threshold was 2.8 +/- 1.4 V, and sensed potentials were 2.5 +/- 1.8 mV; the sensing configuration was changed from bipolar to unipolar in 6 patients to resolve undersensing issues. No major complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study shows that DHBP can be accomplished with a new system consisting of a steerable catheter and an active fixation lead in 92% of the patients in whom it was attempted.     

Mortality and Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation in Paced Patients

Mortality and AF Incidence in Paced Patients. This review presents and discusses available data from randomized controlled trials on the prognosis of pacemaker patients, especially the incidences of atrial fibrillation (AF) and death, the impact of pacing mode selection, and the impact of AF on prognosis. The incidence of AF is several times higher in paced patients than in the nonpaced population. The annual incidences of AF and chronic AF are at least 5% and 3%, respectively, after pacemaker implantation. Mean lifetime cumulative incidences of AF and chronic AF can be estimated at approximately 30% to 40% and 20%, respectively. The most important predictors of AF are brady‐tachy syndrome, sick sinus syndrome, and selection of VVI(R) pacing mode. The expected lifespan in paced patients is shorter than in the age‐matched nonpaced population. One of the factors decreasing lifespan in paced patients most likely is the high incidence and prevalence of AF. In patients with sick sinus syndrome, VVI pacing significantly increases AF and mortality compared with AAI pacing. In a mixed population of patients with bradycardia, DDD(R) pacing causes AF less often than does VVI(R) pacing. Survival does not differ between these pacing modes within the first 3.5 years after pacemaker implantation. At the present time, AAI(R) should be the preferred pacing mode in patients with sick sinus syndrome, and DDD(R) should be used for other patients without chronic AF for prevention of AF. It is not clear whether prevention of AF will improve survival of paced patients.     

希浦系统起搏操作和临床分析:单中心经验

目的总结北京大学第一医院前50例希浦系统起搏病例,为初期开展此项技术提供临床借鉴。方法回顾性分析2019年4-12月本中心同一术者团队行希浦系统起搏操作的前50例患者资料及手术和随访情况。按起搏部位分为希氏束起搏(HBP)组、左束支区域起搏(LBBP)组、室间隔内起搏(IVSP)组,比较各组间的手术操作、起搏结果和参数随访情况。结果按患者手术先后顺序每10例患者一组,共分为5组。随着手术例数的增加,希浦系统起搏的成功率从前10例的50%上升至最后10例的90%,而手术时间显著缩短[(152.7±55.1)min比(89.8±37.7)min,P=0.037],完成20例手术后,成功率稳定在80%以上较好的水平。按照最终起搏的结果,IVSP组15例、HBP组10例、LBBP组25例。左心室激动时间(LVAT),HBP组[(79.4±8.2)ms比(96.0±19.2)ms,P=0.012]和LBBP组[(81.5±13.5)ms比(96.0±19.2)ms,P=0.013]均显著短于IVSP组,差异均有统计学意义;而HBP组和LBBP组[(79.4±8.2)ms比(81.5±13.5)ms,P=0.928]比较,差异无统计学意义。起搏QRS波时限,HBP组[(106.4±19.9)ms比(138.8±18.9)ms,P<0.001]和LBBP组[(118.9±12.3)ms比(138.8±18.9)ms,P<0.001]均显著短于IVSP组,差异均有统计学意义;LBBP组较HBP组延长[(118.9±12.3)ms比(106.4±19.9)ms,P=0.030],差异有统计学意义。但HBP组的起搏阈值显著高于IVSP组[(1.4±0.5)V比(0.6±0.3)V,P<0.001]和LBBP组[(1.4±0.5)V比(0.7±0.2)V,P=0.019],差异均有统计学意义。感知R波则HBP组显著低于IVSP组[(5.7±2.1)mV比(10.2±5.3)mV,P=0.009]和LBBP组[(5.7±2.1)mV比(9.6±2.2)mV,P<0.001]。而LBBP组和IVSP组各项起搏参数均无差异。各组随访期间,起搏阈值和感知R波均无明显变化。手术操作中我们采用了影像法辅助希氏束及左束支区域的解剖定位。结论本中心回顾分析显示,第20~50例的手术操作,可以较熟练掌握希浦系统起搏技术。LBBP可作为初期开展希浦系统起搏的首选。影像解剖定位法可简化手术流程,避免对希氏束和传导束的损伤。     

The Atrial Pacing Peri-ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (PA3) Study: rationale and study design.

The Canadian Atrial Pacing Peri-Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Study tested the hypotheses that atrial pacing prevents paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) in patients without symptomatic bradycardia and that DDDR pacing is more likely to prevent PAF following total atrioventricular (AV) node ablation compared to VDD pacing. Patients with PAF who were refractory to or intolerant of antiarrhythmic drug therapy received a Medtronic Thera DR pacemaker 3 months prior to a planned total AV node ablation. Patients were randomized to atrial pacing or no pacing therapy. The time to first recurrence of sustained PAF was the primary study outcome event. Following AV node ablation, patients were randomized to the DDDR or VDD mode in a crossover study design. Patients were followed in each mode for 6 months. The time course of PAF recurrence was compared for each pacing mode.