...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology >Atrial sensing and AV synchrony in single lead VDD pacemakers: a prospective comparison to DDD devices with bipolar atrial leads.
【24h】

Atrial sensing and AV synchrony in single lead VDD pacemakers: a prospective comparison to DDD devices with bipolar atrial leads.

机译:单引线VDD起搏器中的心房感应和AV同步:与双极心房引线的DDD设备的前瞻性比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

INTRODUCTION: Single lead VDD pacing has offered an alternative to DDD systems in patients with isolated AV block. Up to now, however, the relative performance of these pacemaker systems was not systematically compared. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred sixty patients who received either a VDD pacemaker (n = 180) or a DDD device (n = 180) with a bipolar atrial lead were investigated prospectively for a mean period of 30 +/- 13 months. Pacemaker function was analyzed by telemetry, Holter monitoring, and exercise ECG. Time of implantation and fluoroscopy was significantly lower with VDD devices (44.3 +/- 5.1 min vs 74.4 +/- 13.5 min and 4.6 +/- 2.5 min vs 10.3 +/- 5.6 min in DDD pacemakers, respectively). Intermittent atrial undersensing occurred in 23.3% of patients with a VDD pacemaker and in 9.4% with DDD devices (NS). The incidence of atrial tachyarrhythmias did not differ between the VDD (6.7%) and the DDD group (6.1%). Sinus node dysfunction developed in 1.9% of patients, but the vast majority (85.7%) of patients were asymptomatic. There was a tendency for a higher rate of operative revisions in the DDD group (6.1% vs 3.3% in VDD pacemakers, P = 0.15). Cumulative maintenance of AV-synchronized pacing mode was 94.9% in patients with VDD pacemakers and 92.1% with DDD devices (NS). CONCLUSION: With the benefit of a simpler implant procedure, long-term outcome of single lead VDD pacing is equivalent to DDD pacing in patients with AV block and preoperative normal sinus node function.
机译:简介:对于孤立性房室传导阻滞的患者,单引脚VDD起搏已为DDD系统提供了替代方案。但是,到目前为止,还没有系统地比较这些起搏器系统的相对性能。方法和结果:接受前瞻性研究的360例接受双极心房导线的VDD起搏器(n = 180)或DDD装置(n = 180)的患者平均随访时间为30 +/- 13个月。通过遥测,动态心电图监测和运动心电图分析起搏器功能。 VDD设备的植入和透视检查时间显着减少(分别在DDD起搏器中分别为44.3 +/- 5.1分钟和74.4 +/- 13.5分钟和4.6 +/- 2.5分钟和10.3 +/- 5.6分钟)。 VDD起搏器的患者发生间歇性心房感觉减退,占23.3%,DDD设备(NS)的患者占9.4%。 VDD(6.7%)和DDD组(6.1%)之间的房性快速性心律失常的发生率没有差异。 1.9%的患者出现窦房结功能障碍,但绝大多数(85.7%)患者无症状。 DDD组有更高的手术翻修率(VDD起搏器为6.1%vs 3.3%,P = 0.15)。 VDD起搏器患者的AV同步起搏模式累计维持率为94.9%,而DDD设备(NS)的患者为92.1%。结论:受益于简单的植入程序,对于患有房室传导阻滞且术前窦房结功能正常的患者,单引线VDD起搏的长期结果与DDD起搏等效。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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