Hay Ilan, Melenovsky Vojtech, Fetics Barry J, Judge Daniel P, Kramer Andrew, Spinelli Julio, Reister Craig, Kass David A, Berger Ronald D
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md, USA.
Circulation. 2004 Nov 30;110(22):3404-10. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000148177.82319.C7. Epub 2004 Nov 22.
Single-site ventricular pacing in patients with heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and severe atrioventricular (AV) nodal block risks the generation of discoordinate contraction. Whether altering the site of stimulation can offset this detrimental effect and what role sequential right ventricular-left ventricular (RV-LV) stimulation might play in such patients remain unknown.
Nine subjects with heart failure (ejection fraction, 14% to 30%), atrial fibrillation, and AV block were studied by pressure-volume analysis. Ventricular stimulation was applied to the RV (apex and outflow tract), LV free wall, and biventricular (BiV) at 80 and 120 bpm. BiV improved systolic function more than either site alone (dP/dt(max), 810+/-83, 924+/-98, 983+/-102 mm Hg/s for RV, LV, BiV, respectively; P<0.05), although LV pacing was significantly better than RV pacing. However, only BiV improved diastolic function (isovolumic relaxation) over RV or LV alone. Similar results were obtained for both heart rates. RV pacing site did not alter the BiV effect, and concomitant stimulation of both RV sites did not improve function over each alone. Finally, varying RV-LV delay revealed optimal responses with simultaneous pacing.
Simultaneous BiV pacing acutely enhances both systolic and diastolic function over single-site RV or LV pacing in congestive heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation and advanced AV block. Sequential RV-LV stimulation offers minimal benefit on average and should perhaps be considered only in targeted subsets such as nonresponding patients.
对于心力衰竭、心房颤动及严重房室结阻滞患者,单部位心室起搏有产生不协调收缩的风险。改变刺激部位能否抵消这种有害影响,以及序贯性右心室-左心室(RV-LV)刺激在此类患者中可能发挥何种作用,目前尚不清楚。
通过压力-容积分析对9例心力衰竭(射血分数为14%至30%)、心房颤动及房室阻滞患者进行了研究。分别以80次/分和120次/分的频率对右心室(心尖和流出道)、左心室游离壁及双心室(BiV)进行心室刺激。双心室起搏改善收缩功能的效果优于单独任何一个部位(右心室、左心室、双心室的最大dp/dt分别为810±83、924±98、983±102mmHg/s;P<0.05),尽管左心室起搏明显优于右心室起搏。然而,只有双心室起搏相对于单独的右心室或左心室起搏改善了舒张功能(等容舒张)。两种心率下均获得了类似结果。右心室起搏部位并未改变双心室起搏的效果,同时刺激两个右心室部位并未比单独刺激每个部位时更好地改善功能。最后,改变右心室-左心室延迟显示同步起搏时反应最佳。
对于合并心房颤动和晚期房室阻滞的充血性心力衰竭患者,与单部位右心室或左心室起搏相比,同时进行双心室起搏可急性增强收缩和舒张功能。序贯性右心室-左心室刺激平均获益极小,或许仅应考虑用于无反应患者等特定亚组。