Cardiac Electrophysiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA.
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010 Jun;3(6):567-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.12.017.
To compare right ventricular (RV) activation during intrinsic conduction or pacing in heart failure (HF) patients.
RV activation during intrinsic conduction or pacing in patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is unclear but may affect the prognosis. In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), timed LV pacing (CRT-LV) may be superior to biventricular pacing (CRT-BiV), and is hypothesized to be due to the merging of LV-paced and right bundle branch-mediated wavefronts, thus avoiding perturbation of RV electrical activation.
Epicardial RV activation duration (RVAD) (onset to end of free wall activation) was evaluated noninvasively by electrocardiographic imaging in healthy control subjects (n = 7) and compared with that of HF patients (LV ejection fraction 23 +/- 10%, n = 14). RVAD in HF was contrasted during RV pacing, CRT-BiV, and CRT-LV at optimized AV intervals.
During intrinsic conduction in HF (n = 12), the durations of QRS and precordial lead rS complexes were 158 +/- 24 and 77 +/- 17 ms, respectively, indicating delayed total ventricular depolarization but rapid initial myocardial activation. Echocardiography demonstrated no significant RV disease. RV epicardial voltage, activation patterns, and RVAD in HF did not differ from normal (RVAD 32 +/- 15 vs. 28 +/- 3 ms, respectively, p = 0.42). In HF, RV pacing generated variable areas of slow conduction and prolonged RVAD (78 +/- 33 ms, p < 0.001). RVAD remained delayed during CRT-BiV at optimized atrioventricular intervals (76 +/- 32 ms, p = 0.87). In contrast, CRT-LV reduced RVAD to 40 +/- 26 ms (p < 0.016), comparable to intrinsic conduction (p = 0.39) but not when atrioventricular conduction was poor or absent.
In HF patients without RV dysfunction treated with CRT, normal RV free wall activation in intrinsic rhythm indicated normal right bundle branch-mediated depolarization. However, the RV was vulnerable to the development of activation delays during RV pacing, whether alone or with CRT-BiV. These were avoided by CRT-LV in patients with normal atrioventricular conduction.
比较心力衰竭(HF)患者固有传导与起搏时右心室(RV)的激活情况。
左心室(LV)功能障碍患者固有传导或起搏时 RV 的激活情况尚不清楚,但可能会影响预后。在心脏再同步治疗(CRT)中,LV 定时起搏(CRT-LV)可能优于双心室起搏(CRT-BiV),其假设是由于 LV 起搏和右束支介导的波阵面的融合,从而避免 RV 电激活的干扰。
通过心电图成像技术在健康对照者(n = 7)中评估心外膜 RV 激活时间(RVAD)(从游离壁激活开始到结束),并与 HF 患者(LV 射血分数 23 ± 10%,n = 14)进行比较。在优化 AV 间期时,比较 HF 患者在 RV 起搏、CRT-BiV 和 CRT-LV 时的 RVAD。
在 HF 固有传导时(n = 12),QRS 和胸前导联 rS 波群的持续时间分别为 158 ± 24 和 77 ± 17 ms,表明心室总去极化延迟,但初始心肌激活迅速。超声心动图未发现明显的 RV 疾病。HF 中的 RV 心外膜电压、激活模式和 RVAD 与正常无异(RVAD 分别为 32 ± 15 与 28 ± 3 ms,p = 0.42)。在 HF 中,RV 起搏产生了不同区域的缓慢传导和 RVAD 延长(78 ± 33 ms,p < 0.001)。在优化的房室间期时,CRT-BiV 时 RVAD 仍延迟(76 ± 32 ms,p = 0.87)。相比之下,CRT-LV 将 RVAD 降低至 40 ± 26 ms(p < 0.016),与固有传导相似(p = 0.39),但在房室传导不良或缺失时则不同。
在接受 CRT 治疗且无 RV 功能障碍的 HF 患者中,固有节律时 RV 游离壁的正常激活表明正常的右束支介导去极化。然而,RV 容易在 RV 起搏时出现激活延迟,无论是单独使用还是与 CRT-BiV 一起使用。在房室传导正常的患者中,CRT-LV 可避免这些情况的发生。