Zanini R, Facchinetti A I, Gallo G, Cazzamalli L, Bonandi L, Dei Cas L
Department of Cardiology, Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1990 Dec;13(12 Pt 2):2076-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1990.tb06945.x.
In patients with sinus node disease (SND), VVI pacing seems an inappropriate method of cardiac stimulation because of its potential adverse hemodynamic and arrhythmic effects. AAI-DDD pacing, preferred because of lower morbidity, may also determine a higher survival rate. We examined retrospectively two groups of patients with SND. Stimulated respectively with VVI pacing (group 1 = 57 patients) and AAI pacing (group 2 = 53 patients). The mean duration of the follow-up interval was 40.1 months for group 1 and 45 months for group 2. Ten patients (17.5%) in the VVI group and five (9.4%) in the AAI died. During the follow-up, in the VVI group three patients developed congestive heart failure and ten developed chronic atrial fibrillation, whereas only one case of heart failure and two with atrial fibrillation have been recorded in the AAI group. Moreover, four patients had embolic complications in group 1. Five patients (9.4%) with AAI pacing were converted to sequential pacing due to the occurrence of second-degree heart block. The statistical analysis was developed by the X2 test for the comparison of the proportion of the events (atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, embolic accidents) in the two groups: a significantly higher morbidity (P less than 0.01) was recorded in the AAI group. Survival is also higher in AAI patients, but the survival rate difference, calculated using the Mantel-Cox method, is not statistically significant. The findings of our study show that in SND the superiority of AAI pacing over VVI is statistically significant as far as morbidity is concerned, and we have also noticed an evident but not statistically significant superiority regarding mortality.
在患有窦房结疾病(SND)的患者中,VVI起搏似乎是一种不合适的心脏刺激方法,因为它可能产生不良的血流动力学和心律失常影响。AAI-DDD起搏因发病率较低而更受青睐,它也可能带来更高的生存率。我们回顾性研究了两组SND患者,分别采用VVI起搏(第1组 = 57例患者)和AAI起搏(第2组 = 53例患者)。第1组的平均随访间隔时间为40.1个月,第2组为45个月。VVI组中有10例患者(17.5%)死亡,AAI组中有5例(9.4%)死亡。在随访期间,VVI组有3例患者发生充血性心力衰竭,10例发生慢性房颤,而AAI组仅记录到1例心力衰竭和2例房颤。此外,第1组有4例患者发生栓塞并发症。5例(9.4%)接受AAI起搏的患者因发生二度房室传导阻滞而转为顺序起搏。采用X2检验对两组事件(房颤、充血性心力衰竭、栓塞事件)的发生率进行比较的统计分析:AAI组的发病率显著更高(P小于0.01)。AAI患者的生存率也更高,但使用Mantel-Cox方法计算的生存率差异无统计学意义。我们的研究结果表明,在SND中,就发病率而言,AAI起搏优于VVI起搏具有统计学意义,并且我们还注意到在死亡率方面有明显但无统计学意义的优势。