...
首页> 外文期刊>PACE: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology >Variability of left ventricular electromechanical activation during right ventricular pacing: implications for the selection of the optimal pacing site.
【24h】

Variability of left ventricular electromechanical activation during right ventricular pacing: implications for the selection of the optimal pacing site.

机译:右心室起搏期间左心室机电激活的变化:对最佳起搏部位的选择的含义。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: The right ventricular septum (RVS) and Hisian area (HA) are considered more "physiological" pacing sites than right ventricular apex (RVA). Studies comparing RVS to RVA sites have produced controversial results. There are no data about variability of electromechanical activation obtained by an approach using fluoroscopy and electrophysiological markers. This study compared the variability of left ventricular (LV) electromechanical activation in patients undergoing short-term RVA and RVS with that measured during HA pacing based on fluoroscopy and electrophysiological markers. METHODS: Tissue Doppler echocardiography was performed in 142 patients before and after RVA (54), RVS (44), and HA (44) pacing. Electromechanical activation was assessed by: (1) electromechanical latency (EML)-interval between QRS onset and mechanical activation of basal LV; (2) intra-LV dyssynchrony (intra-LV)-interval between earliest to the latest LV basal motion. The intra- and interpatients variability among pacing groups were assessed. RESULTS: Pacing from RVA showed longer EML and higher degree of intra-LV than RVS and HA pacing. RVA and RVS showed a higher variability than HA pacing with regard to intrapatient changes of EML (RVA vs RVS, P = 0.4; RVS vs HA, P = 0.01, RVA vs HA, P = 0.0002) and intra-LV (RVA vs RVS, P = 0.2; RVS vs HA, P = 0.04; RVA vs HA, P = 0.005). Similar results were found in interpatients variability from paced-values. CONCLUSIONS: RVA and RVS pacing produce a variable effect on LV electromechanical activation that is significantly more pronounced than HA pacing. A pacing site such as HA selected by fluoroscopic and electrophysiological markers maintains baseline and homogeneous LV activation pattern.
机译:背景:右心室间隔(RVS)和Hisian区域(HA)被认为比右心室顶点(RVA)更“生理”起搏部位。比较RVS和RVA站点的研究产生了有争议的结果。没有有关通过荧光透视法和电生理标志物的方法获得的机电激活变化的数据。这项研究比较了短期RVA和RVS患者的左心室(LV)机电激活的变异性,以及根据荧光检查和电生理指标在HA起搏期间测得的变异性。方法:对142例RVA(54),RVS(44)和HA(44)起搏前后的患者进行组织多普勒超声心动图检查。通过以下方式评估机电激活:(1)QRS发作与基底LV机械激活之间的机电潜伏期(EML)-间隔; (2)LV内不同步(intra-LV)之间的间隔最早至最新的LV基础运动。评估起搏组之间患者内和患者间的差异。结果:与RVS和HA起搏相比,RVA起搏显示更长的EML和更高的左心内度。就患者的EML变化而言(RVA vs RVS,P = 0.4; RVS vs HA,P = 0.01,RVA vs HA,P = 0.0002)和LV内(RVA vs RVS),RVA和RVS显示出比HA起搏更高的变异性,P = 0.2; RVS vs HA,P = 0.04; RVA vs HA,P = 0.005)。从起搏值得出的患者间差异也发现了相似的结果。结论:RVA和RVS起搏对LV机电激活产生可变影响,其作用明显比HA起搏更为明显。通过荧光镜和电生理标记选择的起搏位点(例如HA)可维持基线和均匀的LV激活模式。

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