...
首页> 外文期刊>Europace: European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology >Impacts of ventricular rate regularization pacing at right ventricular apical vs. septal sites on left ventricular function and exercise capacity in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation.
【24h】

Impacts of ventricular rate regularization pacing at right ventricular apical vs. septal sites on left ventricular function and exercise capacity in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation.

机译:永久性心房纤颤患者右心室心尖和中隔位置的心室率调节起搏对左心室功能和运动能力的影响。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

AIMS: The deleterious effects of right ventricular apex (RVA) pacing may offset the potential benefit of ventricular rate (VR) regularization during atrial fibrillation (AF). Recent studies suggested that right ventricular septal (RVS) pacing may prevent the potential deleterious effects of RVA pacing and enhance the VR regularization (VRR) with ventricular pacing due to closer proximity of the pacing site to the retrograde atrioventricular conduction. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 24 patients with permanent AF and symptomatic bradycardia to undergo RVA (n = 12) or RVS (n = 12) pacing. A VRR algorithm was programmed for all patients at 6-month after implantation. All patients underwent 6 min hall walk (6MHW) to assess exercise capacity at 6, 12, and 24 months, and radionuclide ventriculography to determine left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 and 24 months. Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups except pacing QRS duration was significantly shorter during RVS pacing than RVA pacing (132 +/- 4 vs. 151 +/- 6 ms, P = 0.012). In both groups, VRR significantly increased the percentage of ventricular pacing and reduced VR variability (P < 0.05) without increasing mean VR (P > 0.05). At 6 months, 6MHW and LVEF were comparable in patients with RVA and RVS pacing (P > 0.05). At 24 months, patients with RVA pacing had significant decreases in LVEF and 6MHW after VRR pacing (P < 0.05), whereas RVS pacing with VRR preserved LVEF and improved 6MHW (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients with permanent AF, VRR pacing at RVS, but not at RVA, preserves LVEF and provides incremental benefit for exercise capacity.
机译:目的:右心尖(RVA)起搏的有害作用可能抵消了心房颤动(AF)期间心室率(VR)规范化的潜在好处。最近的研究表明,右心室间隔(RVS)起搏可能会阻止RVA起搏的潜在有害作用,并由于起搏部位更靠近逆行房室传导而使心室起搏增强VR调节(VRR)。方法和结果:我们将24例永久性AF和有症状的心动过缓患者随机分为RVA(n = 12)或RVS(n = 12)起搏。植入后6个月,为所有患者编写了VRR算法。所有患者均经过6分钟的门诊步行(6MHW)来评估6、12和24个月的运动能力,并进行放射性核素心室造影以确定6和24个月的左心室射血分数(LVEF)。除起搏起搏期间QRS持续时间明显比RVA起搏短(132 +/- 4 vs. 151 +/- 6 ms,P = 0.012)外,两组的基线特征均相当。在两组中,VRR均显着增加了心室起搏的百分比并降低了VR变异性(P <0.05),而没有增加平均VR(P> 0.05)。在6个月时,RVA和RVS起搏患者的6MHW和LVEF相当(P> 0.05)。在24个月时,接受RVA起搏的患者在VRR起搏后LVEF和6MHW明显降低(P <0.05),而采用VRR的RVS起搏保留了LVEF并改善了6MHW(P <0.05)。结论:对于患有永久性AF的患者,在RVS而不是在RVA进行VRR起搏可以保留LVEF,并为运动能力提供递增的益处。

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