Michowitz Yoav, Nakahara Shiro, Bourke Tara, Buch Eric, Vaseghi Marmar, De Diego Carlos, Wiener Isaac, Mahajan Aman, Shivkumar Kalyanam
UCLA Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California 90095-1679, USA.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2011 Jan;34(1):37-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.02892.x. Epub 2010 Oct 14.
Electrophysiological properties of the atrial endocardium compared to epicardium are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to compare the electrophysiological properties and vulnerability to arrhythmia induction from these regions.
Transseptal endocardial and percutaneous epicardial mapping were performed in a porcine model (n = 7). Two opposing 4-mm electrophysiological catheters were positioned endocardially and epicardially. A circular mapping catheter (CMC) was positioned at the ostium of the common inferior pulmonary vein (CIPV) recording left atrial (LA)-PV potentials. Endocardial and epicardial effective refractory periods (ERPs) at two basic cycle lengths (CLs) of 600 and 400 ms were recorded from four anatomic locations (CIPV, LA appendage, right superior PV, and LA posterior wall). Atrial repetitive response (ARR) induction was also tested from endocardial and epicardial sites. Overall, 254 ERP measurements (mean 36.3 per animal) and 84 induction attempts (mean 12 per animal) were performed. The ERP was significantly shorter in the epicardium compared to the endocardium at basic CL of 400 ms (P = 0.006) but not at CL of 600 ms (P = 0.2). In addition, only the epicardium demonstrated ERP shortening when the CL of the basic drive was shortened (P = 0.03). ARR could be induced more often from the epicardium (P = 0.002) and fibrillatory activity with epicardial/endocardial dissociation was recorded (n = 3). Also, the earliest PV activation site on the CMC was noted to be different in 16.5% of cases during epicardial and endocardial pacing.
The electrophysiological characteristics of the atrial epicardium are different from the endocardium with a shorter ERP and more frequent ARR induction by programed stimulation.
与心房心外膜相比,心房心内膜的电生理特性尚未得到充分了解。本研究的目的是比较这些区域的电生理特性以及对心律失常诱发的易感性。
在猪模型(n = 7)中进行了经房间隔心内膜和经皮心外膜标测。将两根相对的4毫米电生理导管分别置于心内膜和心外膜。将环形标测导管(CMC)置于下肺静脉共同开口(CIPV)处,记录左心房(LA)-肺静脉电位。从四个解剖位置(CIPV、左心耳、右上肺静脉和左心房后壁)记录了600和400毫秒两个基本周期长度(CL)下心内膜和心外膜的有效不应期(ERP)。还从心内膜和心外膜部位测试了心房重复反应(ARR)的诱发情况。总体而言,进行了254次ERP测量(平均每只动物36.3次)和84次诱发尝试(平均每只动物12次)。在基本CL为400毫秒时,心外膜的ERP明显短于心内膜(P = 0.006),但在CL为600毫秒时并非如此(P = 0.2)。此外,当基本驱动的CL缩短时,只有心外膜的ERP缩短(P = 0.03)。从心外膜更容易诱发ARR(P = 0.002),并记录到有心外膜/心内膜分离的颤动活动(n = 3)。此外,在心外膜和心内膜起搏期间,16.5%的病例中CMC上最早的肺静脉激活部位不同。
心房心外膜的电生理特征与心内膜不同,其ERP较短,通过程控刺激更频繁地诱发ARR。