Khastgir T, Lattuca J, Aarons D, Murphy J, O'Mara V, Juanteguy J, Veltri E P
Department of Medicine, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Maryland 21215.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1991 May;14(5 Pt 1):768-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1991.tb04104.x.
To assess the effect of defibrillation and amiodarone on ventricular pacing threshold and time to capture in patients undergoing automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) implantation, 28 patients were prospectively evaluated. The patients were entered into one of two protocols: Ia--epicardial ventricular pacing threshold measured at baseline (preventricular fibrillation induction) and 10 and 60 seconds postdefibrillation with 20 J, or Ib--two fibrillation-defibrillation sequences were performed 3 minutes apart and ventricular pacing thresholds were measured for each sequence at baseline and at 10 and 60 seconds postdefibrillation with 20 J. Ten patients also underwent asynchronous pacing at 1.1 times baseline threshold during ventricular fibrillation with measurement of time to capture postdefibrillation. All patients were randomly assigned to receive either amiodarone or no antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Ventricular fibrillation was induced with AC (applied for 1-2 seconds), and standard epicardial bipolar and epicardial patch electrodes of the AICD were used for pacing and defibrillation, respectively. Ventricular pacing threshold at baseline, 10 seconds, 60 seconds, and 3 minutes postdefibrillation did not differ significantly. There were no significant differences in patients with or without amiodarone therapy. Furthermore, there was no transient loss of ventricular capture postdefibrillation or significant difference in time to capture with amiodarone (less than or equal to 2 seconds). We conclude that following internal defibrillation with 20 J: (1) ventricular pacing threshold at 10 seconds, 60 seconds, and 3 minutes were not significantly different from baseline with one or two fibrillation-defibrillation sequences, (2) time to capture was short, and (3) there was no significant difference in no drug versus amiodarone. These findings have direct clinical importance in considering device therapy with both pacing and defibrillating capabilities.
为评估除颤和胺碘酮对接受植入式自动心脏复律除颤器(AICD)植入患者的心室起搏阈值及夺获时间的影响,对28例患者进行了前瞻性评估。患者被纳入以下两种方案之一:方案Ia——在基线(预防室颤诱发)、20 J除颤后10秒和60秒测量心外膜心室起搏阈值;方案Ib——间隔3分钟进行两次室颤-除颤序列操作,并在基线以及每次序列操作的20 J除颤后10秒和60秒测量心室起搏阈值。10例患者还在室颤期间以1.1倍基线阈值进行非同步起搏,并测量除颤后夺获时间。所有患者被随机分配接受胺碘酮或不接受抗心律失常药物治疗。采用交流电诱发室颤(持续1 - 2秒),AICD的标准心外膜双极电极和心外膜贴片电极分别用于起搏和除颤。除颤后基线、10秒、60秒和3分钟时的心室起搏阈值无显著差异。接受或未接受胺碘酮治疗的患者之间无显著差异。此外,除颤后无心室夺获的短暂丢失,且使用胺碘酮时夺获时间无显著差异(小于或等于2秒)。我们得出结论,20 J体内除颤后:(1)进行一次或两次室颤-除颤序列操作后,10秒、60秒和3分钟时的心室起搏阈值与基线无显著差异;(2)夺获时间较短;(3)不使用药物与使用胺碘酮之间无显著差异。这些发现对于考虑兼具起搏和除颤功能的器械治疗具有直接的临床意义。