Himmrich E, Krämer L I, Fischer W, Dörr T, Reinecke H
Universität Mainz.
Herz. 2001 Feb;26(1):69-74. doi: 10.1007/s00059-001-2262-6.
In a prospective and randomized multicenter study using a cross-over protocol we compared the efficacy and the safety of the ELA medical mode-switch algorithm (DDD/AMC = DDD to AAI) to conventional DDD stimulation in patients with spontaneous AV conduction.
Forty-eight patients with a mean age of 67 +/- 13 years were included. Underlying heart disease was present in 54%. Pacemaker indications were paroxysmal AV block (21%), sick-sinus syndrome (46%), paroxysmal AV block + sick-sinus syndrome (31%) and tachycardia-bradycardia syndrome (8%). Patients were excluded from the study in case of a permanent 1st to 3rd degree AV block, a right bundle-branch block with QRS > 120 ms, severe coronary heart disease or idiopathic cardiomyopathy. The programming of the pacemaker was randomized to either DDD/AMC or DDD and was crossed over after 1 month. The AV interval (AVI) which was programmed in conventional DDD pacing was calculated as AVI = PR (or AR) + 30 ms at rest or as AVI = PR (or AR) - 50 ms during exercise. When the DDD/AMC mode was programmed, the AV interval was calculated automatically. We analyzed the AV interval, the frequency of ventricular pacing, the number of pacemaker-induced tachycardias, the number of atrial tachyarrhythmias, and the final programming which was left to the physician's choice.
The AV interval after conventional DDD stimulation was 201 +/- 38 ms vs 195 +/- 28 ms with DDD/AMC (p = ns). Ventricular stimulation was significantly less often in the DDD/AMC mode than in the DDD mode (15 +/- 17% vs 48 +/- 37%, p < 0.001). Thereby the DDD/AMC algorithm led to a 69% reduction of ventricular pacing which means an approximately 5.5 months prolongation of the battery lifetime. There was no significant difference in the incidence of pacemaker-induced tachycardias. At the end of the study 77% of the physicians programmed the DDD/AMC mode.
The analyzed DDD/AMC mode-switch algorithm leads to a significant reduction of ventricular pacing in patients with spontaneous AV conduction or with only paroxysmal AV block. Thereby the battery lifetime is prolonged and the incidence of complications due to ventricular pacing can be reduced.
在一项采用交叉方案的前瞻性随机多中心研究中,我们比较了ELA医疗模式转换算法(DDD/AMC = DDD转AAI)与传统DDD刺激对具有自发房室传导患者的疗效和安全性。
纳入48例平均年龄为67±13岁的患者。54%的患者存在基础心脏病。起搏器植入指征为阵发性房室传导阻滞(21%)、病态窦房结综合征(46%)、阵发性房室传导阻滞+病态窦房结综合征(31%)和心动过速-心动过缓综合征(8%)。永久性一度至三度房室传导阻滞、QRS时限>120 ms的右束支传导阻滞、严重冠心病或特发性心肌病患者被排除在研究之外。起搏器的程控被随机分为DDD/AMC或DDD,并在1个月后交叉。传统DDD起搏程控的房室间期计算为静息时房室间期 = PR(或AR)+30 ms,运动时房室间期 = PR(或AR)-50 ms。当程控为DDD/AMC模式时,房室间期自动计算。我们分析了房室间期、心室起搏频率、起搏器诱发的心动过速数量、房性快速心律失常数量以及留给医生选择的最终程控。
传统DDD刺激后的房室间期为201±38 ms,而DDD/AMC模式下为195±28 ms(p = 无统计学意义)。DDD/AMC模式下心室刺激明显少于DDD模式(15±17%对48±37%,p<0.001)。因此,DDD/AMC算法使心室起搏减少69%,这意味着电池寿命延长约5.5个月。起搏器诱发的心动过速发生率无显著差异。研究结束时,77%的医生选择了DDD/AMC模式。
所分析的DDD/AMC模式转换算法可使具有自发房室传导或仅阵发性房室传导阻滞的患者心室起搏显著减少。从而延长电池寿命,并可降低心室起搏引起的并发症发生率。