Suppr超能文献

室上性起源的阵发性束支传导阻滞:在使用心室内心电图的时域分析检测室性心动过速时可能的误诊来源。

Paroxysmal bundle branch block of supraventricular origin: a possible source of misdiagnosis in detecting ventricular tachycardia using time domain analyses of intraventricular electrograms.

作者信息

Throne R D, DiCarlo L A, Jenkins J M, Winston S A

机构信息

Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

出版信息

Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1990 Apr;13(4):453-68. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1990.tb02060.x.

Abstract

Current implantable antitachycardia devices use several methods for differentiating sinus rhythm (SR) from supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) or ventricular tachycardia (VT). These methods include sustained high rate, the rate of onset, changes in cycle length, and sudden onset. Additional methods for detecting VT include techniques based upon ventricular electrogram morphology. The morphological approach is based on the assumption that the direction of cardiac activation, as sensed by a bipolar electrode in the ventricle, is different when the patient is in SR as compared to VT. Whether paroxysmal bundle branch block of supraventricular origin (BBB) can be differentiated from VT has not been determined. In this study, we compared the morphology of the ventricular electrogram during sinus rhythm with a normal QRS (SRNIQRS) or SVT with a normal QRS (SVTNIQRS) with the morphologies of BBB and VT in 30 patients undergoing cardiac electrophysiology studies. Changes in ventricular electrogram morphology were determined using three previously proposed time domain methods for VT detection: Correlation Waveform Analysis (CWA), Area of Difference (AD), and Amplitude Distribution Analysis (ADA). CWA, AD, and ADA distinguished VT from SRNIQRS or SVTNIQRS in 16/17 (94%), 14/17 (82%), and 12/17 (71%) patients, and BBB from SRNIQRS or SVTNIQRS in 15/15 (100%), 13/15 (87%), and 6/15 (40%) patients, respectively. However, the ranges of values during BBB using these methods overlapped with ranges of values during VT in all cases for CWA, AD, and ADA. Hence, BBB may be a source of misdiagnosis in detecting VT when these time domain methods are used for ventricular electrogram analysis.

摘要

目前的植入式抗心动过速装置采用多种方法来区分窦性心律(SR)与室上性心动过速(SVT)或室性心动过速(VT)。这些方法包括持续高心率、发作速率、周期长度变化和突然发作。检测VT的其他方法包括基于心室电图形态的技术。形态学方法基于这样一种假设,即当患者处于SR时,与VT相比,心室中双极电极所感知的心脏激动方向是不同的。室上性起源的阵发性束支传导阻滞(BBB)是否能与VT区分开来尚未确定。在本研究中,我们比较了30例接受心脏电生理研究的患者在窦性心律伴正常QRS波(SRNIQRS)或室上性心动过速伴正常QRS波(SVTNIQRS)时心室电图的形态与BBB和VT的形态。使用三种先前提出的用于VT检测的时域方法来确定心室电图形态的变化:相关波形分析(CWA)、差异面积(AD)和幅度分布分析(ADA)。CWA、AD和ADA分别在16/17(94%)、14/17(82%)和12/17(71%)的患者中将VT与SRNIQRS或SVTNIQRS区分开来,在15/15(100%)、13/15(87%)和6/15(40%)的患者中将BBB与SRNIQRS或SVTNIQRS区分开来。然而,在所有情况下,对于CWA、AD和ADA,使用这些方法时BBB期间的值范围与VT期间的值范围重叠。因此,当这些时域方法用于心室电图分析时,BBB可能是检测VT时误诊的一个来源。

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