Division of Cardiology, Korea University Medical Center, 126-1 5ga, Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 136-705, Republic of Korea.
Europace. 2010 Apr;12(4):508-16. doi: 10.1093/europace/eup407. Epub 2010 Jan 6.
Multisite atrial pacing has been suggested to be effective in suppressing atrial fibrillation (AF), however, the effect of linear triple-site atrial pacing (LTSP) in humans has not been evaluated. We compared the effects of LTSP to single-site atrial pacing (SSP) on the atrial activation and wavefront propagation pattern in patients with persistent AF.
In 10 patients with persistent AF, the effects of LTSP and SSP were evaluated by left atrial (LA) endocardial non-contact multielectrode array mapping and multipolar catheters. LTSP and SSP were delivered from the high right atrium (HRA), the distal coronary sinus (CS), and within the LA at the site showing maximal overlay of low-voltage zones during sinus rhythm and pacing at HRA and CS. Atrial activation time and pattern, P wave duration, and the prevention of AF induced by burst pacing were assessed with these pacing interventions. Compared with SSP, LTSP at the HRA, CS, and LA shortened atrial activation times (183 +/- 24 vs. 174 +/- 24 ms, 186 +/- 29 vs. 166 +/- 28 ms, and 171 +/- 40 vs. 163 +/- 39 ms; P < 0.05, respectively). P wave duration was shorter with LTSP than SSP at all three sites (141.7 +/- 35.1 vs. 146.9 +/- 38.5 ms, 138.1 +/- 34.6 vs. 145.7 +/- 33.7 ms, and 142.7 +/- 33.4 vs. 151.3 +/- 35.1 ms; P < 0.05, respectively). LTSP initially depolarized a larger area than SSP, and produced more uniform and planar wavefront propagation. LTSP prevented the burst-induction of AF during LA pacing in 3 of 10 patients, while SSP was never successful.
In patients with persistent AF, LTSP provided more rapid and uniform activation of the atria compared with SSP, which was associated with prevention of burst-induction of AF in some patients. Further study is required to determine whether LTSP can modify the substrate of chronic AF, leading to frank AF suppression.
多部位心房起搏已被证明对抑制心房颤动(房颤)有效,然而,线性三部位心房起搏(LTSP)在人体中的效果尚未得到评估。我们比较了 LTSP 和单部位心房起搏(SSP)对持续性房颤患者心房激活和波前传播模式的影响。
在 10 例持续性房颤患者中,通过左心房(LA)心内膜非接触式多电极阵列标测和多极导管评估 LTSP 和 SSP 的效果。LTSP 和 SSP 分别从高位右心房(HRA)、远端冠状窦(CS)和窦性节律及 HRA 和 CS 起搏时低电压区最大重叠的 LA 内进行传递。用这些起搏干预评估心房激活时间和模式、P 波持续时间以及burst 起搏诱导的房颤预防情况。与 SSP 相比,HRA、CS 和 LA 的 LTSP 缩短了心房激活时间(183 ± 24 比 174 ± 24 ms、186 ± 29 比 166 ± 28 ms 和 171 ± 40 比 163 ± 39 ms;P < 0.05)。在所有三个部位,LTSP 的 P 波持续时间均短于 SSP(141.7 ± 35.1 比 146.9 ± 38.5 ms、138.1 ± 34.6 比 145.7 ± 33.7 ms 和 142.7 ± 33.4 比 151.3 ± 35.1 ms;P < 0.05)。LTSP 最初去极化的区域大于 SSP,产生更均匀和平坦的波前传播。LTSP 在 10 例患者中的 3 例中预防了 LA 起搏时的 burst 诱导房颤,而 SSP 从未成功。
在持续性房颤患者中,与 SSP 相比,LTSP 可使心房更快、更均匀地激活,这与一些患者预防 burst 诱导房颤有关。需要进一步研究 LTSP 是否能改变慢性房颤的基质,从而抑制房颤的发生。