Bordachar P, Garrigue S, Lafitte S, Reuter S, Jaïs P, Haïssaguerre M, Clementy J
Hopital Cardiologique du Haut-Leveque, University of Bordeaux, Pessac, France.
Heart. 2003 Dec;89(12):1401-5. doi: 10.1136/heart.89.12.1401.
To correlate, in patients with right ventricular pacing (RVP), the QRS width with electromechanical variables assessed by pulsed Doppler tissue imaging echocardiography. Secondly, to find reliable parameters for selecting RVP patients who would respond to biventricular pacing (BVP).
26 randomly selected control patients with RVP (mean (SD) ejection fraction 74 (3)%) (group A) were matched on sex and age criteria with 16 RVP patients with drug resistant heart failure (mean (SD) ejection fraction 27 (5)%) (group B). All patients were pacemaker dependent and all underwent pulsed Doppler tissue imaging echocardiography. This technique provided the intra-left ventricular (LV) electromechanical delay and the interventricular electromechanical delay. The Gaussian curve properties of data from group A patients provided the normal range of ECG and echographic parameters.
Prospective study.
University hospital (tertiary referral centre).
Data from the control group showed that an interventricular electromechanical delay or an intra-LV electromechanical delay > 50 ms would identify patients with a significantly abnormal ventricular mechanical asynchrony (p < 0.05). In the same manner, a QRS width > 190 ms was considered significantly larger in group B patients (p < 0.05) than in controls. In Group B patients, there was no correlation between the QRS width and the interventricular electromechanical delay (r = -0.23, NS) or the intra-LV electromechanical delay (r = 0.19, NS). Seven group B patients (44%) were misclassified by ECG criteria for ventricular mechanical asynchrony identification: four patients (25%) had a QRS width similar to that of controls but with a significantly prolonged intra-LV electromechanical delay and interventricular electromechanical delay; and three patients (19%) had a QRS width significantly larger than that in controls but without significant ventricular mechanical asynchrony.
The QRS width is not a reliable tool to identify RVP patients with ventricular mechanical asynchrony. In RVP patients, an interventricular electromechanical delay or intra-LV electromechanical delay > 50 ms reflects a significant ventricular mechanical asynchrony and should be required to select patients for upgrading to BVP.
在右心室起搏(RVP)患者中,将QRS波宽度与通过脉冲多普勒组织成像超声心动图评估的机电学变量进行关联分析。其次,寻找可靠的参数以筛选出对双心室起搏(BVP)有反应的RVP患者。
随机选取26例RVP对照患者(平均(标准差)射血分数74(3)%)(A组),按照性别和年龄标准与16例药物难治性心力衰竭的RVP患者(平均(标准差)射血分数27(5)%)(B组)进行匹配。所有患者均依赖起搏器,且均接受了脉冲多普勒组织成像超声心动图检查。该技术可提供左心室内(LV)机电延迟和心室间机电延迟。A组患者数据的高斯曲线特性给出了心电图和超声心动图参数的正常范围。
前瞻性研究。
大学医院(三级转诊中心)。
对照组数据显示,心室间机电延迟或左心室内机电延迟>50 ms可识别出心室机械不同步明显异常的患者(p<0.05)。同样,B组患者中,QRS波宽度>190 ms被认为比对照组明显更宽(p<0.05)。在B组患者中,QRS波宽度与心室间机电延迟(r = -0.23,无显著性差异)或左心室内机电延迟(r = 0.19,无显著性差异)之间无相关性。7例B组患者(44%)因心电图标准在识别心室机械不同步时被误分类:4例患者(25%)的QRS波宽度与对照组相似,但左心室内机电延迟和心室间机电延迟显著延长;3例患者(19%)的QRS波宽度显著大于对照组,但无明显的心室机械不同步。
QRS波宽度不是识别存在心室机械不同步的RVP患者的可靠工具。在RVP患者中,心室间机电延迟或左心室内机电延迟>50 ms反映了明显的心室机械不同步,应以此作为选择升级为BVP患者的标准。