Leclercq J F, De Sisti A, Fiorello P, Halimi F, Manot S, Attuel P
Centre Chirurgical Val d'Or, Saint Cloud, France.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2000 Dec;23(12):2101-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2000.tb00783.x.
Long-term prevention of atrial fibrillation is not constantly realized by single-site right atrial pacing, and the beneficial role of multisite atrial pacing is still being studied. Accordingly, we compared the effectiveness of dual site and single site atrial pacing in 83 patients (50 men, 33 women, aged 69 +/- 10 years), who received a DDD device for primary sinus node dysfunction or bradycardia with documented atrial fibrillation. Inclusion criteria for dual site pacing were a sinus P wave > or = 120 ms and at least two episodes of documented paroxysmal AF in the 6 months preceding implantation. Dual site atrial pacing (high right atrium-coronary sinus ostium) was performed in 30 cases, and was compared to 53 single site paced patients, 21 with a P wave > or = 120 ms and 32 with a P wave < 120 ms. The basic pacing rate was programmed at 68 +/- 4 beats/min (range 60-75 beats/min). Sinus P wave (133 +/- 20 vs 95 +/- 9 ms; P < 0.001), paced P wave (107 +/- 14 vs 99 +/- 15; P < 0.05), number of antiarrhythmic drugs used (2.4 +/- 1.2 vs 1.6 +/- 1.5, P < 0.05), and the duration of symptoms (8.1 +/- 4.5 vs 3.8 +/- 2.4 years; P < 0.001) were significantly higher in dual site patients. The other characteristics were similar. During the follow-up of 18 +/- 15 months (range 3-30 months), paroxysmal AF was documented in 33 patients. Among these patients, 13 developed permanent AF following at least one episode of paroxysmal AF. When comparing dual site patients and single site patients with a P wave duration > or = 120 ms, paroxysmal AF incidence was lower in the dual site group (9/30 patients vs 15/21 patients, P < 0.01), as well as permanent AF (1/30 patients vs 8/21 patients, P < 0.01). By contrast, comparison between dual site patients and the group of single site patients with a P wave duration < 120 ms did not evidence any significant differences in paroxysmal (9/30 patients vs 9/32 patients) and permanent (1/30 patients vs 4/32 patients) AF incidences. Dual site seems better able than single site atrial pacing to improve the natural history of patients with a prolonged P wave, reducing the incidence of paroxysmal and permanent AF. No benefit could be expected in patients with a normal P wave duration.
单部位右心房起搏并不能持续实现心房颤动的长期预防,多部位心房起搏的有益作用仍在研究中。因此,我们比较了83例患者(50例男性,33例女性,年龄69±10岁)双部位和单部位心房起搏的有效性,这些患者因原发性窦房结功能障碍或伴有记录在案心房颤动的心动过缓而接受双腔起搏器。双部位起搏的纳入标准为窦性P波≥120 ms且在植入前6个月内至少有两次记录在案的阵发性房颤发作。30例患者进行了双部位心房起搏(高位右心房-冠状窦口),并与53例单部位起搏患者进行比较,其中21例P波≥120 ms,32例P波<120 ms。基础起搏频率设定为68±4次/分(范围60 - 75次/分)。双部位起搏患者的窦性P波(133±20 vs 95±9 ms;P<0.001)、起搏P波(107±14 vs 99±15;P<0.05)、使用抗心律失常药物的数量(2.4±1.2 vs 1.6±1.5,P<0.05)以及症状持续时间(8.1±4.5 vs 3.8±2.4年;P<0.001)均显著更高。其他特征相似。在18±15个月(范围3 - 30个月)的随访中,33例患者记录到阵发性房颤。在这些患者中,13例在至少一次阵发性房颤发作后发展为永久性房颤。比较双部位起搏患者与P波持续时间≥120 ms的单部位起搏患者时,双部位起搏组的阵发性房颤发生率较低(9/30例患者 vs 15/21例患者,P<0.01),永久性房颤发生率也较低(1/30例患者 vs 8/21例患者,P<0.01)。相比之下,双部位起搏患者与P波持续时间<120 ms的单部位起搏患者组在阵发性房颤(9/30例患者 vs 9/32例患者)和永久性房颤(1/30例患者 vs 4/32例患者)发生率方面没有显著差异。双部位起搏似乎比单部位心房起搏更能改善P波延长患者的自然病程,降低阵发性和永久性房颤的发生率。对于P波持续时间正常的患者,无法预期会有获益。