首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>British Heart Journal >No incremental benefit of multisite atrial pacing compared with right atrial pacing in patients with drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation
【2h】

No incremental benefit of multisite atrial pacing compared with right atrial pacing in patients with drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

机译:药物性难治性阵发性心房颤动患者多部位心房起搏与右心房起搏相比无增加益处

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

OBJECTIVE—To evaluate the incremental antifibrillatory effect of multisite atrial pacing compared with right atrial pacing in patients with drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation paced for arrhythmia prevention alone.
METHODS—In 20 of these patients (mean (SD) age 64 (8) years; 14 female, six male), a single blinded randomised crossover study was performed to investigate the incremental benefit of one month of multisite atrial pacing compared with one month of right atrial pacing. Outcomes included the number of episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, their total duration obtained from pacemaker Holter memory, and quality of life using a cardiac specific questionnaire (the modified Karolinska questionnaire).
RESULTS—Comparing right atrial with multisite atrial pacing, there was no significant change in either the number of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation episodes (mean (SD): right atrial pacing 77 (98) episodes v multisite pacing 52 (78) episodes, NS) or their total duration (right atrial, 4.8 (5.4) days v multisite, 6.3 (9.8) days, NS). Quality of life scores compared with baseline status were equally improved by either pacing strategy (mean percentage improvement: right atrial, 38%, p = 0.003; multisite, 44%, p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in life scores comparing the two pacing modes.
CONCLUSIONS—Multisite atrial pacing has no incremental antiarrhythmic effect compared with right atrial pacing in patients paced for drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Quality of life is equally improved with either pacing strategy, with no differences between them.


>Keywords: multisite atrial pacing; atrial fibrillation; pacing
机译:目的-评估仅采用药物性难治性阵发性心房颤动单独进行心律失常预防的多部位心房起搏与右心房起搏相比增加的抗纤颤作用。
方法-这些患者中有20位(平均(SD)64岁8岁; 14名女性,六名男性),进行了一项单盲随机交叉研究,以调查一个月多部位心房起搏与一个月右房起搏的增量收益。结果包括阵发性心房颤动的发作次数,从起搏器Holter记忆获得的总持续时间以及使用心脏特异性问卷(改良的Karolinska问卷)的生活质量。
结果-比较右心房和多部位心房起搏,阵发性心房颤动发作的次数(平均(SD):右心房起搏77(98)发作多部位起搏52(78)发作,NS)或总持续时间(右心房4.8(5.4) )天v多站点,6.3(9.8)天,NS)。两种起搏方法均可以使生活质量得分与基线状态相比均得到改善(平均百分比提高:右心房38%,p = 0.003;多部位44%,p = 0.003)。两种起搏模式相比,生活得分无显着差异。
结论:对于难治性阵发性心房颤动起搏的患者,多部位心房起搏与右心房起搏相比无增量抗心律失常作用。无论哪种起搏策略,生活质量均得到改善,两者之间没有区别。


>关键字:多部位心房起搏;心房颤动;起搏

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号