Suppr超能文献

与活动传感器调制心室起搏相比,心房同步起搏下亚极量运动耐力和起搏频率变化的双盲研究。

A double-blind study of submaximal exercise tolerance and variation in paced rate in atrial synchronous compared to activity sensor modulated ventricular pacing.

作者信息

Linde-Edelstam C, Nordlander R, Pehrsson S K, Rydén L

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1992 Jun;15(6):905-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1992.tb03081.x.

Abstract

To assess the variation in paced rate during everyday activity and the importance of atrioventricular synchronization (AV synchrony) for submaximal exercise tolerance, atrial synchronous (DDD) and activity rate modulated ventricular (VVI,R) pacing were compared in 17 patients with high degree AV block. The patients were randomly assigned to either mode and evaluated by treadmill exercise to moderate exertion and by 24-hour Holter monitoring after 2 months in the DDD and VVI,R modes, respectively. At the end of the study, the patients were programmed to the pacing mode corresponding to the preferred study period. During the treadmill test, the mean exercise time to submaximal exertion (Borg 5/10), exertion ratings and respiratory rate did not differ between pacing modes despite a significantly lower ventricular rate in the VVI,R mode. The atrial rate during VVI,R pacing was significantly higher than the ventricular rate, but did not differ from the ventricular rate during DDD pacing. There was a diurnal variation in paced rate in both pacing modes. Paced ventricular rate was, however, higher and variation in paced rate greater in DDD compared to VVI,R pacing. Nine patients preferred the DDD mode, three patients preferred the VVI,R mode, while five subjects did not express any preference. The results from this study indicate that the variation in paced rate during activity sensor-driven VVI,R pacing does not match that during DDD pacing neither during everyday activities nor during submaximal treadmill exercise. Nevertheless, no differences in exercise time, Borg ratings, and respiratory rate during submaximal exercise were found. Thus, for most patients with high degree AV block, DDD and VVI,R pacing seem equally satisfactory for submaximal exercise.

摘要

为评估日常活动期间起搏频率的变化以及房室同步(AV同步)对次极量运动耐量的重要性,对17例高度房室传导阻滞患者比较了心房同步(DDD)起搏和活动频率调制心室(VVI,R)起搏。患者被随机分配至两种模式,并分别在DDD和VVI,R模式下2个月后通过跑步机运动至中度用力以及24小时动态心电图监测进行评估。在研究结束时,将患者程控为对应于其偏好研究期的起搏模式。在跑步机测试期间,尽管VVI,R模式下心室率显著更低,但两种起搏模式之间达到次极量用力的平均运动时间(Borg 5/10)、用力评分和呼吸频率并无差异。VVI,R起搏期间的心房率显著高于心室率,但与DDD起搏期间的心室率无差异。两种起搏模式下的起搏频率均存在昼夜变化。然而,与VVI,R起搏相比,DDD起搏下心室起搏频率更高且起搏频率变化更大。9例患者偏好DDD模式,3例患者偏好VVI,R模式,而5例受试者未表达任何偏好。本研究结果表明,在日常活动期间以及次极量跑步机运动期间,活动传感器驱动的VVI,R起搏期间的起搏频率变化均与DDD起搏期间不匹配。尽管如此,在次极量运动期间未发现运动时间、Borg评分和呼吸频率存在差异。因此,对于大多数高度房室传导阻滞患者,DDD起搏和VVI,R起搏在次极量运动方面似乎同样令人满意。

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