Suppr超能文献

双部位右心房起搏联合抗心律失常药物治疗对复发性心房颤动的抑制作用增强。

Improved suppression of recurrent atrial fibrillation with dual-site right atrial pacing and antiarrhythmic drug therapy.

作者信息

Saksena Sanjeev, Prakash Atul, Ziegler Paul, Hummel John D, Friedman Paul, Plumb Vance J, Wyse D George, Johnson Eric, Fitts Stephanie, Mehra Rahul

机构信息

Cardiovascular Institute, Atlantic Health System, Passaic, New Jersey 07055, USA.

出版信息

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Sep 18;40(6):1140-50; discussion 1151-2. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(02)02068-5.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

We compared the safety, tolerance and effectiveness of overdrive high right atrial (RA), dual-site RA and support (DDI or VDI) pacing (SP) in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) and bradycardias.

BACKGROUND

Optimal pacing methods for AF prevention remain unclear.

METHODS

Patients (n = 118) were randomized to each of three pacing modes in a crossover trial.

RESULTS

Mode adherence was superior for dual-site RA (5.8 months) compared with SP (3.3 months; p < 0.001) and high RA pacing (4.7 months; p = 0.006). Adverse event-free survival improved with dual-site RA (p = 0.007 vs. SP) and was comparable to high RA (p = 0. 75). AF-free survival trended to improve with dual-site RA (hazard ratio [HR] 0.715, p = 0.07 vs. SP) but not high RA (HR = 0.71, p = 0.19) or when dual-site RA was compared with high RA (HR = 0.835, p = 0.175). Time-to-recurrence was longer in dual-site RA (1.77 months) compared with high RA (0.62 months, p < 0.09) or SP (0.44 months, p < 0.05). In antiarrhythmic drug-treated patients, dual-site RA reduced recurrence risk compared with SP (HR = 0.638, p = 0.011) and high RA (HR = 0.669, p = 0.06). In patients with < or =1 AF event/week, dual-site RA improved AF suppression (HR = 0.464, p = 0.004 vs. SP; HR = 0.623, p = 0.006 vs. high RA). Dual-site RA improved AF-free and mode survival (p < 0.03 vs. high RA, p < 0.001 vs. SP) and reduced asymptomatic AF (p < 0.01 vs. high RA).

CONCLUSION

Dual-site RA is safe and better tolerated than high RA and SP. In patients on antiarrhythmics, dual-site RA prolonged and high RA trended to prolong time-to-recurrent AF compared with SP. Dual-site RA provides superior symptomatic and asymptomatic AF prevention compared with high RA in patients with symptomatic AF frequency of < or =1/week.

摘要

目的

我们比较了超速右房高位起搏(RA)、双部位RA起搏和支持性(DDI或VDI)起搏(SP)在有症状性心房颤动(AF)和心动过缓患者中的安全性、耐受性和有效性。

背景

预防AF的最佳起搏方法仍不明确。

方法

在一项交叉试验中,将118例患者随机分为三种起搏模式。

结果

与SP(3.3个月;p<0.001)和右房高位起搏(4.7个月;p = 0.006)相比,双部位RA起搏的模式依从性更佳(5.8个月)。双部位RA起搏的无不良事件生存率有所提高(与SP相比,p = 0.007),与右房高位起搏相当(p = 0.75)。双部位RA起搏的无AF生存率有改善趋势(风险比[HR]0.715,与SP相比,p = 0.07),但右房高位起搏无此趋势(HR = 0.71,p = 0.19),双部位RA起搏与右房高位起搏相比也无此趋势(HR = 0.835,p = 0.175)。双部位RA起搏的复发时间(1.77个月)比右房高位起搏(0.62个月,p<0.09)或SP(0.44个月,p<0.05)更长。在接受抗心律失常药物治疗的患者中,与SP(HR = 0.638,p = 0.011)和右房高位起搏(HR = 0.669,p = 0.06)相比,双部位RA起搏降低了复发风险。在每周AF发作≤1次的患者中,双部位RA起搏改善了AF抑制情况(与SP相比,HR = 0.464,p = 0.004;与右房高位起搏相比,HR = 0.623,p = 0.006)。双部位RA起搏改善了无AF和模式生存率(与右房高位起搏相比,p<0.03;与SP相比,p<0.001),并减少了无症状AF(与右房高位起搏相比,p<0.01)。

结论

双部位RA起搏安全,耐受性优于右房高位起搏和SP。在接受抗心律失常药物治疗的患者中,与SP相比,双部位RA起搏延长了AF复发时间,右房高位起搏有此趋势。在有症状性AF发作频率≤1次/周的患者中,与右房高位起搏相比,双部位RA起搏在预防有症状和无症状AF方面更具优势。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验