Kim Robert J, Iwai Sei, Markowitz Steven M, Shah Bindi K, Stein Kenneth M, Lerman Bruce B
Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Cornell University Medical Center, New York, New York 10021, USA.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 May 22;49(20):2035-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.01.085. Epub 2007 May 4.
This study sought to compare and contrast the clinical and electrophysiological characteristics of outflow tract arrhythmias.
Idiopathic ventricular outflow tract arrhythmias manifest clinically in 3 forms: 1) paroxysmal sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (SMVT), 2) repetitive nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT), or 3) premature ventricular contractions (PVCs). Although these arrhythmias have a similar site of origin, it is unknown whether they share a common mechanism or similar clinical features.
A total of 127 patients (63 female [50%], mean age 51 +/- 15 years) were evaluated for outflow tract arrhythmias.
A total of 36 (28%) presented with the index clinical arrhythmia of SMVT, 46 (36%) with NSVT, and 45 (35%) with PVCs. The sites of origin of the arrhythmias were similar among the 3 groups, occurring in the right ventricular outflow tract in 82%. Sustained ventricular tachycardia was more likely to be induced during exercise in the SMVT (10 of 15 patients [67%]) than NSVT or PVCs groups (p < 0.01). Sustained outflow tract ventricular tachycardia was induced at electrophysiology study in 78% of SMVT patients, 48% of NSVT patients, and 4% of PVCs patients. Adenosine was similarly effective in all 3 groups (p = NS).
Patients with outflow tract arrhythmias can be differentiated based on the subtype of arrhythmia. However, the observation that approximately 50% of patients with NSVT and approximately 5% of patients with PVCs have inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia that behaves in an identically unique manner to those who present with sustained ventricular tachycardia (e.g., adenosine-sensitive) suggests that rather than representing distinct entities, outflow arrhythmias may be considered a continuum of a single mechanism.
本研究旨在比较和对比流出道心律失常的临床和电生理特征。
特发性心室流出道心律失常临床上有3种表现形式:1)阵发性持续性单形性室性心动过速(SMVT),2)反复非持续性室性心动过速(NSVT),或3)室性早搏(PVCs)。尽管这些心律失常起源部位相似,但它们是否具有共同机制或相似临床特征尚不清楚。
共对127例患者(63例女性[50%],平均年龄51±15岁)进行了流出道心律失常评估。
共有36例(28%)表现为索引临床心律失常SMVT,46例(36%)表现为NSVT,45例(35%)表现为PVCs。3组心律失常的起源部位相似,82%发生于右心室流出道。与NSVT或PVCs组相比,SMVT组(15例患者中的10例[67%])在运动期间更易诱发持续性室性心动过速(p<0.01)。在电生理研究中,78%的SMVT患者、48%的NSVT患者和4%的PVCs患者诱发了持续性流出道室性心动过速。腺苷在所有3组中的效果相似(p=无显著性差异)。
流出道心律失常患者可根据心律失常亚型进行区分。然而,约50%的NSVT患者和约5%的PVCs患者可诱发出持续性室性心动过速,其表现与持续性室性心动过速患者(如对腺苷敏感)完全相同,这表明流出道心律失常可能并非代表不同实体,而可被视为单一机制的连续体。