双房同步起搏联合预防心房颤动的起搏治疗模式治疗快速房性心律失常的临床应用(附三例报告)

为观察三腔双房起搏联合预防心房颤动 (简称房颤 )的起搏治疗模式治疗快速性房性心律失常的临床效果。研究 3例房间传导阻滞合并快速性房性心律失常 ,并置入三腔双房同步起搏器的患者。起搏器具有房颤预防治疗功能。左房起搏通过冠状静脉窦置入 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。DDTA起搏模式 ,随访 6个月 ,观察超驱动起搏、长间期抑制、房性早搏 (简称房早 )后加速起搏功能关闭和开启时 ,患者的临床症状、统计模式转换发生的次数、第一次至第二次房颤发作的间期、平均 2 4h房早记数。结果 :双房同步起搏后 ,患者快速房性心律失常的发作明显减少。超驱动起搏、长间期抑制、房早后加速起搏功能开启时 ,模式转换发生的次数减少、第一次至第二次房颤发作的间期延长、平均 2 4h房早记数明显减少。结论 :初步临床应用提示 :三腔双心房起搏联合预防房颤的起搏治疗模式治疗快速性房性心律失常可行且有效。     

双房起搏治疗快速性房性心律失常的疗效探讨

目的：探讨具有自动模式转换功能（AMS）的DDD起搏器进行双房三腔心脏起搏治疗房内传导阻滞并快速性房心律失常患者的疗效及随访要求。方法：对2例例患者植Medtronic THERA DR7964iDDD起搏器,进行双房－右室三腔起搏治疗,定期起搏器程控和Holter复查了解近期及远期起搏各参数变化、起搏与自身心律的关系及对房性心律失常影响。结果：2例阵发房颤、房扑者、房颤发作明显减少,双房－右室近期及远期起搏阈值测定良好,起搏器AMS发挥正常,但起搏程控检测冠状窦电极参数受限并且起搏器自动模式转换详情观察具有一定局限性。结论：双房心脏起搏器能有效地治疗因房内传导阻滞引起的快速房性心律失常;AMS的DDD起搏器适用于具有快速房性心律失常的双房心脏起搏患者,为了更好地观察冠状窦电极的稳定性及更确工判断该起搏术对快速房心律失常的疗效,有待使用新型的转换器,并进一步探讨起搏器的连接方式。     

AAISafeR起搏模式的长期随访观察

目的对置入具有AAISafeR功能的Symphony 2450起搏器的患者进行长期随访观察。方法入选40例患者,分别于置入起搏器后3个月、6个月,以后每年1次进行随访,观察左房内径(LAD)、左室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)及左室射血分数。通过起搏器程控计算心房起搏及感知百分比,心室起搏及感知百分比。同时记录房性心律失常的发生率。结果随访18±4.6(12～24)个月,心室起搏百分比23.5%±3.5%。与术前相比,术后LAD、LVEDD均有缩小(P<0.05)。相关分析显示,LAD、LVEDD与心室起搏百分比呈正相关。术后快速房性心律失常发作例数明显减少。结论AAISafeR起搏模式能够有效减少心室起搏百分比,减少房性心律失常的发生。     

动态心房超速起搏预防阵发性房性心律失常的临床应用

为评价动态心房超速起搏 (DAO)方式预防阵发性快速性房性心律失常的临床疗效 ,选择 5例患者 ,均为病窦综合征合并阵发性快速性房性心律失常 ,置入具有DAO功能的双腔起搏器。随访单盲把患者分为A组 :DAOon和B组DAOoff,半年后交换 ,共随访 12个月。每个月随访症状 ,每 3个月一次 2 4h动态心电图及程控仪随访自动模式转换 (AMS)次数。置入起搏器后胸闷、心悸、气促等症状较起搏器置入前改善。在DAOon时较off时这些症状进一步改善。 2 4h动态心电图随访快速性房性心律失常发作时间 :A组DAOon时 3 3 .8± 10 .7minvsDAOoff时 60 .4± 19.3min ,B组DAOoff时 5 5 .1± 17.6minvsDAOon时 3 7.2± 13 .5min。程控仪监测到AMS次数 :A组DAOon时64 9± 3 1minvsDAOoff时 5 796± 3 86min ,B组DAOoff时 5 5 69± 3 0 5minvsDAOon时 65 8± 2 9min。结论 :动态心房超速起搏方式具有一定的预防阵发性快速性房性心律失常的作用。     

三腔起搏器治疗快速性房性心律失常的临床应用(附二例报告)

目的观察三腔双心房起搏治疗快速性房性心律失常的临床效果。探讨三腔起搏的原理,适应症以及起搏模式的选择。方法患者2例均为男性,平均年龄50岁,诊断房间传导阻滞合并快速性房性心律失常,并植入三腔双心房同步起搏器。左心房起搏通过冠状静脉窦植入2188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。结果双房同步起搏后,患者快速房性心律失常的发作明显减少。结论初步临床应用提示,三腔双心房同步起搏治疗快速性房性心律失常可行且有效。     

抗心动过速起搏器识别、预防和终止快速房性心律失常的有效性分析

目的研究评价抗心动过速DDDRP起搏器对识别、预防和终止快速房性心律失常(atrial tachyarrhythmia,ATA)的有效性.方法研究对象为因病态窦房结综合征合并ATA而置入DDDRP起搏器(Medtronic,AT500/AT501)的患者24例.起搏器的心房预防性起搏(atrial preventive pacing,APP)方案由主治医生决定是否或者何时开启,ATA的监测和抗心动过速起搏(anti-tachycardia pacing,ATP)功能则在置入术后随即激活.回放起搏器存储的心律失常事件和心内电图,核对、分析起搏器识别ATA的准确性和ATP终止ATA的效率,同时比较在APP功能开启前后患者ATA负荷的差异.结果 24例患者在(17.63±8.79)个月的随访期内均无事件生存,无起搏器相关并发症.12例患者起搏器的APP功能始终是关闭状态,6例患者在第一次术后随访时开启,另有6例的APP功能在随访至9.29个月时激活.24台起搏器共记录到97 367阵次的ATA,在有心内电图记录的阵次中,起搏器对ATA识别正确率为(76.77±20.52)%;ATP终止ATA的有效率为(50.27±19.29)%.尽管APP功能开启后的心房起搏比例(87.95±20.93)%较开启前(50.73±34.46)%明显增高(P《0.01),但是患者的ATA负荷(14.73% 与16.52% 或7.52 h/周与6.58 h/周)和最长单阵ATA持续时间(27.27 h 与20.75 h)差异均无统计学意义(P》0.05).结论 DDDRP起搏器能识别和诊断大多数(75%)的房性心律失常,适时发放的ATP治疗可超速抑制、终止约50%的房性心动过速或心房扑动;APP功能提高心房起搏的比例,但从整体上并不能明显减少ATA的发作和降低患者的ATA负荷.     

非竞争性心房起搏

非竞争性心房起搏(NCAP)是美敦力公司的起搏器在双腔起搏模式下的一种常见功能,NCAP间期一般程控为300ms(有200,250,300,350,400ms可程控)(部分为300ms,不可程控)。NCAP功能打开后,落于心室后心房不应期之中的房性早搏被感知,启动NCAP间期,心房起搏脉冲在NCAP间期之外发放,可避免心房起搏所诱发的快速性房性心律失常的发生。不同起搏模式下NCAP的运作各有特点、从而对心房、心室时间间期和其他功能产生影响。     

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。     

双房同步起搏治疗房性快速性心律失常

双房起搏是心脏起搏技术的一项最新进展,可用于治疗由房间传导阻滞引起的房间折返性房性快速性心律失常。在常规右房、右室双腔起搏的 基础上,植入冠状窦电极起搏左房,建立双房右室三心腔起搏系统,实现双房电活动的同步化,消除房间传导阻滞和房间折返,防治由房间传导阻滞引起的房性快速性心律失常。     

双房同步起搏治疗房性快速性心律失常

双房起搏是心脏起搏技术的一项最新进展 ,可用于治疗由房间传导阻滞引起的房间折返性房性快速性心律失常。在常规右房、右室双腔起搏的基础上 ,植入冠状窦电极起搏左房 ,建立双房右室三心腔起搏系统 ,实现双房电活动的同步化 ,消除房间传导阻滞和房间折返 ,防治由房间传导阻滞引起的房性快速性心律失常。     

Pace-Termination and Pacing for Prevention of Atrial Tachyarrhythmias: Results from a Multicenter Study with an Implantable Device for Atrial Therapy

INTRODUCTION: Patients with bradycardia requiring permanent pacing frequently suffer from additional atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs). This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of atrial antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and the performance of pacing for AT prevention implemented into a new pacemaker. METHODS AND RESULTS: In patients with conventional indications for permanent pacing, an investigational DDDRP pacemaker (Medtronic AT500, model 7253) was implanted. The primary study objectives were to determine the safety of overall device functioning and its efficacy in terminating spontaneous AT. A secondary endpoint was to determine the reliability of AT detection. Pacemaker memory functions were used to analyze the impact of dedicated pacing algorithms on AT prevention. In 33 European and Canadian centers, 325 patients were enrolled (mean follow-up 2.3+/-1.3 months). Complication-free survival at 3 months was 88%. In 2,145 episodes stored with atrial electrograms, AT detection was confirmed in 97%. The algorithm for continuous overdrive pacing increased the percentage of atrial pacing to 97%. After ATP activation, 16,683 of 52,468 AT episodes were treated (120 patients). Of these, 8,903 episodes (53%) were terminated successfully by ATP. No proarrhythmic effect of preventive pacing or atrial ATP was observed. Preventive pacing algorithms increased the median percentage of atrial pacing from 62% to 97%. However, the number of AT/AF (atrial fibrillation) episodes (4.1 vs 4.1 per patient per day) and the time in AT/AF (13.7% vs 12.8%) was not significantly different before and after activation of preventive pacing. CONCLUSION: DDDRP pacing with a new system for AT therapy was safe and associated with successful pace-termination of AT in 53% of episodes. Preventive pacing and atrial ATP algorithms represent two new functions that can be implemented safely into pacemaker systems for nonpharmacologic treatment of ATs in patients requiring pacemaker therapy.     

Suppression of Atrial Tachyarrhythmias by Pacing

Pace‐Suppression of AF. Introduction: Treatment of atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) remains difficult in many patients. Accordingly, new therapeutic approaches for AT suppression are evaluated. Atrial pacing may prevent ATs by modifying the electrophysiologic conditions required for sustained ATs. Methods and Results: New pacing algorithms for prevention of AT are aimed at permanent overdrive suppression of arrhythmic activity, reduction of dispersion of atrial refractoriness produced by short‐long cycles, more aggressive overdrive pacing after spontaneous sinus conversion to prevent early reinitiation of ATs, and prevention of inadequate rate decay in patients with vagally induced ATs. AT prevention may be achieved by dedicated atrial pacing sites, e.g., pacing at the insertion of Bachmann's bundle or biatrial pacing, which compensates for interatrial conduction delay. Preexciting regions of critical conduction delay, pacing at the triangle of Koch or coronary sinus os, and dual‐site right atrial pacing have shown antiarrhythmic effects. Atrial preventive pacing and pharmacologic treatment may work synergistically in the concept of hybrid therapy. To prevent atrial electrical remodeling, early termination of AT seems desirable. This may be achieved by implanted devices that automatically detect ATs and provide atrial antitachycardia pacing for organized ATs. Initial studies showed that regular AT can automatically be terminated in approximately 50% of treated episodes. Conclusion: Pacing for prevention of AT and termination of organized AT episodes may become important steps within the concept of hybrid therapy of AT. However, their clinical efficacy and optimal patient selection remain to be evaluated in prospective, well‐designed clinical trials.     

Long term management of atrial arrhythmias in young patients with sick sinus syndrome undergoing early operation to correct congenital heart disease.

AIMS: The objective of our study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of patients with operated congenital heart disease (CHD), post-operative sinus node dysfunction and atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT) who had a new generation of DDDRP pacemakers (Model AT501, Medtronic Inc., MN, USA) able to deliver preventive atrial pacing and antitachycardia pacing (ATP) therapies. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifteen CHD patients (mean age 17+/-9 years, eight after Mustard operation, five after extracardiac Fontan operation and two after atrial septum repair) received a dual-chamber pacemaker with transvenous (eight patients) or epicardial leads (seven patients). In the year before implantation, all patients had symptomatic AT (palpitations), eight patients required hospitalization and five required electrical cardioversion. Pacing prevention algorithms were enabled in all patients, and ATP therapies in six patients. During a mean follow-up of 30 months (range 24-44), three patients (two Fontan, one Mustard) died of CHF, whereas AT required hospitalization in three patients (two Fontan, one atrial septum repair). Only seven patients had symptomatic AT. One hundred and twenty-five AT episodes were treated by ATP in three patients, with an overall termination efficacy of 43.2%. In one patient, atrial lead noise induced inappropriate AT detection that resulted in ATP delivery. Several AT episodes were not treated owing to their very short duration, atrial undersensing, or 1:1 atrioventricular conduction. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience with antitachycardia pacemakers in CHD patients with post-operative sick sinus syndrome after biventricular correction or palliation shows that these devices are safe and that atrial pacing may play a role in AT prevention and treatment.     

The effect of atrial pacing therapies on atrial tachyarrhythmia burden and frequency: results of a randomized trial in patients with bradycardia and atrial tachyarrhythmias

OBJECTIVES: The Atrial Therapy Efficacy and Safety Trial (ATTEST) was a prospective, randomized study to evaluate preventive pacing and antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial tachycardia (AT). BACKGROUND: The effect of the combination of atrial prevention and termination algorithms on AT/AF burden and frequency in pacemaker patients is unknown. METHODS: A DDDRP pacemaker (AT500, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) with three atrial preventive pacing algorithms and two ATP algorithms was implanted in 368 patients. Patients were randomized one-month post-implant to all prevention and ATP therapies ON or OFF and followed for three months. The OFF group had DDDR pacing at a lower programmed rate of 60 ppm. The AT/AF burden and frequency were determined from daily device counters in 324 patients treated according to protocol. RESULTS: In 17,018 episodes with stored electrograms, appropriate detection was confirmed in 17,004 (99.9%). The median percentage of atrial pacing was 98% in the ON group versus 75% in the OFF group (p < 0.001). Using device-defined criteria for successful termination, ATP terminated 8,590 (54%) of 15,789 treated episodes. The median AT/AF burden during the three-month study period was 4.2 h/month ON versus 1.1 h/month OFF (p = 0.20). The median AT/AF frequency was 1.3 episodes/month ON versus 1.2 episodes/month OFF (p = 0.65). System-related, complication-free survival at four months was 90.2% (Kaplan-Meier estimate). CONCLUSIONS: This DDDRP pacemaker is safe, has accurate AT/AF detection, and provides ATP with 54% efficacy as defined by the device. The atrial prevention and termination therapies combined did not reduce AT/AF burden or frequency in this patient population.     

Automatic Atrial Anti-Tachy Pacing for the Termination of Spontaneous Atrial Tachyarrhythmias: Clinical Experience with a Novel Dual-Chamber Pacemaker

Automatic atrial anti-tachy pacing (aATP) is a novel approach to treat paroxysmal/persistent atrial tachyarrhythmias in pacemaker patients. To evaluate the efficacy of aATP in terminating spontaneous atrial flutter/tachycardia episodes (AT), a dual-chamber stimulator with extensive diagnostic capabilities and programmable aATP therapies (AT500^TM, Medtronic Inc.) was implanted in 30 patients with conventional pacing indications. During a mean follow-up time of 5.5 (1–12) months, aATP was delivered for 10494 AT. According to automatic device analysis, 8289 AT were treated with success (success-rate 79.0%). On 468 AT stored with the corresponding atrial EGM, an additional manual analysis was performed. The success-rate based on automatic analysis of these AT episodes (73.1%) was comparable to that found for all treated AT (79.0%), but manual EGM analysis revealed that only 209 of the 468 treated AT episodes (44.7%) were actually terminated by aATP. The aATP success-rate in the slower (cycle length 360–270ms) AT detection zone was significantly higher (73.8%, 62/84eps) than in the overlapping, faster (cycle length 270–220ms) AT zone (38.3%, 147/384eps, P<0.01). Conclusions: According to manual analysis, 1. aATP was safe and had a success-rate of 44.7%, 2. aATP success-rate was higher for AT in the slower than in the faster detection zone and 3. automatic analysis overestimated the efficacy of aATP.     

Atrial Pacing Therapies for Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Implantable Defibrillators

Atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter and atrial tachycardia (AT) occur frequently in patients following implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Some new generation ICDs have incorporated atrial antitachycardia pacing therapy (ATP) and atrial pacing algorithms designed specifically for the prevention of AF. In the GEM III AT clinical evaluation, atrial ATP efficacy for termination of AF and AT was assessed. Overall ATP efficacy for AF/AT, based on device classification, was 40% when adjusted using the Generalized Estimating Equations to account for correlated data that arises from utilizing multiple episodes in some patients. However, many episodes of AF/AT were noted to terminate within 10 minutes of onset. Applying a more conservative definition of efficacy, termination within 20 sec of delivery of the last atrial ATP, efficacy for termination of AF/AT was 26%. 50 Hz burst pacing was shown to have minimal efficacy for termination of AF and modest incremental benefit following ramp or burst pacing therapies for AT. These observations provide a more realistic expectation of the value of atrial ATP in the ICD population with AF. Atrial ATP terminates some episodes of AT but previously reported efficacy rates of 40-50% are exaggerated and in part reflect spontaneous terminations of some AF/AT episodes.     

Pacing to Prevent Atrial Fibrillation

Introduction: Pacing has been proposed as a nonpharmacologic treatment option to prevent atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) in drug-refractory patients. This article reviews the current state of pacing to prevent ATs.
Methods and Results: Different pacing modalities have been assessed with regard to their ability to prevent AT: conventional DDDR pacing with elevated lower rate limit, biatrial pacing, dual-site right atrial pacing, atrial septal pacing, and pacing with the use of dedicated pacing algorithms. Small studies suggest a benefit of conventional pacing for AT prevention in patients with bradycardia, but a randomized trial did not reveal any AT reduction by conventional pacing in patients without bradycardia. AT prevention by biatrial or dual-site right atrial pacing has been reported in small studies, but randomized trials did not show a clear benefit of these pacing techniques. Small studies showed a reduced AT recurrence rate in patients with septal pacing at the triangle of Koch or at Bachmann's bundle. Two large randomized trials with preventive pacing algorithms showed a significant AT reduction compared to conventional pacing, but this was not confirmed in four trials.
Conclusion: Pacing seems to be able to suppress ATs in a minority of patients; however, prospective identification of responders to different pacing modalities does not appear to be feasible at the present time. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 14, pp. S20-S26, September 2003, Suppl.)     

Increased AAI mode pacing threshold after termination of atrial fibrillation by acute administration of disopyramide phosphate.

AIMS: We studied changes in atrial pacing threshold after termination of atrial fibrillation (AF) by acute administration of disopyramide phosphate (DP) to elucidate the suitable setting for atrial pacing output before AF termination. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four patients with sick sinus syndrome implanted with AAI mode pacemakers were examined. Disopyramide phosphate (2 mg/kg body weight) was injected intravenously for termination of a total of eight AF episodes. The maximal pacing threshold after AF termination (5.2+/-0.8 V at 0.45 ms) was significantly higher than that at baseline (1.3+/-0.2 V at 0.45 ms; P<0.01) and the average increment was 433+/-68%. During a period free from AF, an acute administration of DP did not increase the atrial pacing threshold and serum disopyramide levels were not toxic. CONCLUSION: The increased atrial pacing threshold observed after AF termination cannot be explained by the action of DP alone. However, our results suggest that atrial pacing output should be set at the maximum value before DP is administered to induce AF termination in patients with AAI pacemaker-dependent bradyarrhythmias.     

Effectiveness of Rapid Atrial Pacing for Termination of Drug Refractory Atrial Fibrillation: Results of a Dual Chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Trial

There is increasing interest in the use of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to manage atrial tachyarrhythmias. Although device-based shock therapy is highly effective in terminating persistent atrial tachyarrhythmias, atrial overdrive pacing may also be useful, particularly when this therapy is applied early after the onset of an arrhythmia. A dual-chamber ICD (Medtronic 7250 Jewel AF(R)) has been studied in 267 patients with drug-refractory symptomatic AF. The patients were enrolled as part of multicenter clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the device to manage atrial tachyarrhythmias in the absence of a standard ventricular ICD indication. The device discriminates atrial tachycardia (AT) from atrial fibrillation (AF) based on cycle length and regularity, and employs multiple methods of atrial overdrive pacing as well as shocks to terminate tachyarrhythmia episodes. Patients were followed for an average of 15.8 +/- 9.3 months. A majority (63%) of patients presented with a history of persistent AF and 34% presented with a history of paroxysmal AF. The pacing therapies terminated 54% of AT episodes and 27% of AF episodes. In patients with persistent AF, 75% of the AT/AF episodes that were successfully terminated by pacing lasted 相似文献