Iliev I I, Yamachika S, Muta K, Hayano M, Ishimatsu T, Nakao K, Komiya N, Hirata T, Ueyama C, Yano K
Third Department of Internal Medicine, Nagasaki University, Japan.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2000 Jan;23(1):74-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2000.tb00652.x.
The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of DDD pacing with optimal AV delay and AAI pacing on the systolic and diastolic performance at rest in patients with prolonged intrinsic AV conduction (first-degree AV block). We studied 17 patients (8 men, aged 69 +/- 9 years) with dual chamber pacemakers implanted for sick sinus syndrome in 15 patients and paroxysmal high degree AV block in 2 patients. Aortic flow and mitral flow were evaluated using Doppler echocardiography. Study protocol included the determination of the optimal AV delay in the DDD mode and comparison between AAI and DDD with optimal AV delay for pacing rate 70/min and 90/min. Stimulus-R interval during AAI (ARI) was 282 +/- 68 ms for rate 70/min and 330 +/- 98 ms for rate 90/min (P < 0.01). The optimal AV delay was 159 +/- 22 ms. AV delay optimization resulted in an increase of an aortic flow time velocity integral (AFTVI) of 16% +/- 9%. At rate 70/min the patients with ARI < or = 270 ms had higher AFTVI in AAI than in DDD (0.214 +/- 0.05 m vs 0.196 +/- 0.05 m, P < 0.01), while the patients with ARI > 270 ms demonstrated greater AFTVI under DDD compared to AAI (0.192 +/- 0.03 m vs 0.166 +/- 0.02 m, P < 0.01). At rate 90/min AFTVI was higher during DDD than AAI (0.183 +/- 0.03 m vs 0.162 +/- 0.03 m, P < 0.01). Mitral flow time velocity integral (MFTVI) at rate 70/min was higher in DDD than in AAI (0.189 +/- 0.05 m vs 0.173 +/- 0.05 m, P < 0.01), while at rate 90/min the difference was not significant in favor of DDD (0.149 +/- 0.05 m vs 0.158 +/- 0.04 m). The results suggest that in patients with first-degree AV block the relative impact of DDD and AAI pacing modes on the systolic performance depends on the intrinsic AV conduction time and on pacing rate.
本研究的目的是比较具有最佳房室延迟的双腔起搏(DDD)与心房按需起搏(AAI)对存在房室传导延长(一度房室传导阻滞)患者静息时收缩和舒张功能的影响。我们研究了17例患者(8例男性,年龄69±9岁),其中15例因病态窦房结综合征植入双腔起搏器,2例因阵发性高度房室传导阻滞植入。使用多普勒超声心动图评估主动脉血流和二尖瓣血流。研究方案包括确定DDD模式下的最佳房室延迟,并比较AAI和具有最佳房室延迟的DDD在起搏频率为70次/分钟和90次/分钟时的情况。AAI模式下的刺激-R间期(ARI)在起搏频率为70次/分钟时为282±68毫秒,在起搏频率为90次/分钟时为330±98毫秒(P<0.01)。最佳房室延迟为159±22毫秒。房室延迟优化使主动脉血流时间速度积分(AFTVI)增加了16%±9%。在起搏频率为70次/分钟时,ARI≤270毫秒的患者在AAI模式下的AFTVI高于DDD模式(0.214±0.05米对0.196±0.05米,P<0.01),而ARI>270毫秒的患者在DDD模式下的AFTVI高于AAI模式(0.192±0.03米对0.166±0.02米,P<0.01)。在起搏频率为90次/分钟时,DDD模式下的AFTVI高于AAI模式(0.183±0.03米对0.162±0.03米,P<0.01)。在起搏频率为70次/分钟时,DDD模式下的二尖瓣血流时间速度积分(MFTVI)高于AAI模式(0.189±0.05米对0.173±0.05米,P<0.01),而在起搏频率为90次/分钟时,有利于DDD模式的差异不显著(0.149±0.05米对0.158±0.04米)。结果表明,在一度房室传导阻滞患者中,DDD和AAI起搏模式对收缩功能的相对影响取决于固有房室传导时间和起搏频率。