心房按需起搏或房室顺序起搏治疗慢快综合征疗效比较

目的：评估用心房按需起搏器（AAI）或房室顺序起搏器（DDD）治疗慢快综合征患者的疗效。方法：1997年1月—2005年12月34例慢快综合征患者接受心脏起搏器治疗,其中用AAI16例,用DDD18例,术后长期随访心功能,持续性心房颤动发生率。结果：经过平均6.8±2.5年随访发现,左室射血分数（LVEF）AAI组术前（57.1±6.4）%,术后（61.2±8.1）%;DDD组术前（57.3±4.3）%,术后（58.7±6.5）%,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。持续性心房颤动发生率,AAI组12.5%（2例）,DDD组33.3%（6例）,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论：用AAI与DDD起搏治疗慢快综合征同样有效,初步观察发现AAI组持续性心房颤动发生率低于DDD组。

A Comparison of Efficacy between Atrial Pacing and Dual-Chamber Pacing in Patients with Slow-fast Syndrome

Objective： To evaluate retrospectively the treatcneat effects on slow-fast syndrome using AAI and DDD pacing. Methods：Thirty four patients with sick-sinus syndrome underwent cardiac pacing therapy,including 16 patients with AAI pacing and 18,with DDD pacing from January of 1997 to December of 2005. After pacemaker implantation, follow-up candiac function and incidence of persistant atrical fibrillation were obained. Results：During follow-up of 6.8 ± 2.5 years, there were no significant changes （P〉0.05） in cardiac systolic function before and after pacing treatment in both patient groups, either using AAI （Left ventricular ejection fraction 57. 1 %± 6.4% pre-versus 61.2% ± 8.1% post treatment） or DDD （57.3% ＋ 4.3% pre versus 58.7 % ± 6.5% post）. There was significant difference （P〈0.05） for the incidence of persistant atrial fibrillation in AAI patient group （2 of 16 cases, 12.5% ） versus （6 of 18 cases, 33.3%） in DDD patient group. Conclusion：Pacing treatment of sinus node syndrome either using AAI or DDD is effective. Preliminary findings indicate that an incidence of persistant atrial fibrillation is observed lower in AAI patient group as compared to that in DDD patient group.